fix hodlinvoice deadlock

[ziggie1984]

Fixes #8803

Depends on #8826

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are limited to specific labels.

Labels to auto review (1)

• llm-review

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[ziggie1984]

So this is still a draft and no tests added yet, tho I want your spotlight on the following topics before continuing:

See also #8803 (comment) for the overall design.

1. The design of the hodlHTLCDisp in parcticular the following question in regards of the subscriber:

I had to change the EventReceiver because I wanted to be flexible in using a particular ID for the subsriber, so I went with the short channel ID, so that when an HTLC gets resolved I can quickly look up the relevant subscriber just by using the shortchanID which is part of the HTLC (resolution) info.

Another approach would be that we always register the correct subscriber to an Hodl HTLC meaning that instead of:

hodlMap fn.Set[models.CircuitKey]

we would need to change the set to a map with the subscribers as a value

hodlMap map[models.CircuitKey]fn.EventReceiver

Then we would need to add the subscriber in the invoices.NotifyExitHop call. Then when resolving we would based on the circuit key get the receiver/subscriber we want to send this resolution to

If we do it the latter way, I think there would be no need for the introduction of an interface of the EventReceiver.

2. So the case which caused (at least from my understanding) the deadlock in the issue would now be fixed because when resolving an HTLC we

• first check if we still have the subscriber available (in case the channellink is already gone)
• and secondly we check if a corresponding HTLC is in the hodlmap of the notifier, if thats not the case we will not send a nofification out.

3. Is the idea of using an interface for the htlcnotifier in the invoiceregistry struct the right direction especially when thinking of unit tests or does it increase complexity unnecessary?

type hodlHTLCNotifier interface {
	fn.EventPublisher[HtlcResolution, bool]

	publishSubscriberEvent(res HtlcResolution) error

	recordHTLC(htlc models.CircuitKey) error

	Start() error

	Stop() error
}

[ziggie1984]

probably better to make the event an interface, with an action type function ?

[ProofOfKeags]

I had to change the EventReceiver because I wanted to be flexible in using a particular ID for the subsriber, so I went with the short channel ID, so that when an HTLC gets resolved I can quickly look up the relevant subscriber just by using the shortchanID which is part of the HTLC (resolution) info.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how the introduction of the interface actually helps things here. I see no mention of the ShortChannelID in the updated Impl or in a new implementation.

Another approach would be that we always register the correct subscriber to an Hodl HTLC meaning that instead of:

This seems like the way I would try to handle it.

Overall I don't know that I can endorse the HTLCNotifier interface, mostly because I don't see what it is solving. The main issue at hand here is that the invoice registry has a lot of its data structures being accessed concurrently from different threads. In other parts of LND we've started to take the approach of moving everything into the main event loop of the component. So rather than having methods on the invoice registry that directly modify data structures, locked or otherwise. Instead, we describe the actions we want to occur and then send those over some channel into the main event loop. This guarantees sequential processing of all data owned by the invoice registry which will then allow us to remove locking infrastructure which should drastically reduce the deadlock risk.