-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 443
Replace dual-sync-async persistence panic with Watch contract #4436
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
joostjager
wants to merge
3
commits into
lightningdevkit:main
Choose a base branch
from
joostjager:revert-mixed-mode-check
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, thinking about this a bit more there's a weird race. Async updates are "completed" only after
release_pending_monitor_eventsreturns the completed update, but also only after it has been processed, which may be some arbitrary and indeterminate amount of time later.For the
ChainMonitorreturn case, this is fine (though we need to updateChainMonitor- we should probably be returningInProgressfor any new update that comes after one for which we have to return a spuriousInProgress. Do you already intend to do that in a followup? should we not do it here?). But for the general API its pretty weird - you can in theory return aCompletedafter returningInProgressas long as you want some indeterminate and arbitrary amount of time, so in practice you can't...We could fix this by adding some mutual exclusion in
channelmanager.rswhere we wait before processingCompletedmonitor updates until after any pendingMonitorEvents are processed - this should be basically zero cost as ~no one is going to be using mixed-async-sync persistence in practice so we'll rarely if ever have any contention.On the flip side, we could say that implementations are allowed to flip from
CompletedtoInProgressfor a channel, but never back (without a restart). Its more complicated to document, but it captures what we need to allow theChainMonitorbehavior.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This sounds like the easier way. There is no need to support mixing sync and async for
Persistimplementations. I do wonder now whether my initial version #4435 wasn't just sufficient. Moving the mixed mode check to the chainmonitor level and keeping everything else the same.Fuzzer run was planned for tonight.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The per-channel mode latch turned out to be not ideal because it required either a new lock on ChannelManager or threading the latch through deeply nested call chains via an already-held lock, all to accommodate ChainMonitor internally using InProgress creatively to signal a monitor update failure rather than async persistence.
Perhaps it is better to make this case explicit in the API? #4445
You were definitely right about the fuzzer. Woke up to lots of errors.