Onion message forwarding #10089
Onion message forwarding #10089
Conversation
This message type is a message that carries an onion-encrypted payload used for BOLT12 messages.
This commit creates the necessary endpoints for onion messages. Specifically, it adds the following: - `SendOnionMessage` endpoint to send onion messages. - `SubscribeOnionMessages` endpoint to subscribe to incoming onion messages. It uses the `msgmux` package to handle the onion messages.
The new wire message defines the OnionMessagePayload, FinalHopPayload, ReplyPath, and related TLV encoding/decoding logic.
This commit replaces the lightning-onion library so that it points to the custom fork that alreadys support onion messaging. This commit should be dropped in favour of a version bump of lightning-onion once the PR for onion messaging is merged.
With this commit we implement the logic to parse, decrypt, and forward onion messages. It contains a refactor to its constructor to accept dependencies like the onionProcessor and a message sender function. In brontide.go and server.go it adds the plumbing to for passing through the onionProcessor from the hop iterator and the SendOnionMessage function to the OnionEndpoint's constructor.
Adds the NewNonFinalBlindedRouteDataOnionMessage function to create blinded route data specifically for onion messages.
With this Update we change the SubscribeOnionMessages RPC to return a stream of OnionMessageUpdate messages instead of OnionMessage. This way we also send back the decrypted payload if any, so we can inspect that in itests.
Adds the new integration test file to test forwarding of onion messages through a multi-hop path.
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @gijswijs, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request introduces the foundational functionality for forwarding onion messages within the Lightning Network. It integrates a new OnionMessage wire protocol message, enables its routing through the existing Sphinx onion processing infrastructure, and provides RPC endpoints for sending and subscribing to these messages. This work lays the groundwork for future application-layer protocols like BOLT12 offers, allowing for privacy-preserving communication beyond just payments.
Highlights
- Onion Message Wire Protocol: Introduces a new
lnwire.OnionMessagetype to the wire protocol, enabling the transmission of onion-encrypted messages between Lightning Network nodes. This message type is distinct from HTLC-carrying onion packets and is designed for application-layer communication. - Sphinx Onion Processing Integration: Extends the existing Sphinx onion processing logic within
htlcswitch/hopto correctly parse and handleOnionMessagepayloads. This includes adapting the hop iterator to recognize onion messages, extracting forwarding information (such as theNextNodeIDfor node-based routing), and performing message-specific TLV validations. - New RPC Endpoints for Onion Messages: Adds
SendOnionMessageandSubscribeOnionMessagesto the LND RPC API. These new endpoints allow external applications and users to programmatically send onion messages to peers and subscribe to a stream of incoming onion messages, facilitating the development of new privacy-preserving communication features. - Dedicated Message Endpoint and Forwarding Logic: Implements a new
onion_message.OnionEndpointthat integrates with themsgmuxto process incominglnwire.OnionMessages. This endpoint is responsible for decrypting the onion blob, determining if the message is for the local node or needs forwarding, and then either dispatching it to subscribers or relaying it to the next hop in the blinded path. - Enhanced Blinded Path Handling: Introduces specific logic for blinded paths within onion messages, including the addition of
NextNodeIDtoForwardingInfo. This ensures that onion messages, which do not carry payment-related information like CLTV deltas or amounts, are correctly processed and forwarded along their intended blinded routes.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces onion message forwarding, a significant feature that touches multiple parts of the codebase. The changes are generally well-structured, with new functionality encapsulated in the onion_message package and corresponding updates to lnwire, htlcswitch, and the RPC layer. The inclusion of integration tests for both direct and forwarded onion messages is a great addition. I've identified a few issues that need attention: a critical bug in handling dummy hops for onion messages, a high-severity issue with TLV decoding that could lead to panics, and a medium-severity issue regarding message routing logic that could cause confusion and potential bugs. Addressing these will improve the correctness and maintainability of the new functionality.
| iterator := makeSphinxHopIterator( | ||
| r.router, onionPkt, sphinxPacket, blindingKit, r.rHash, false, | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The isOnionMessage flag is hardcoded to false when creating a new hop iterator for a peeled dummy hop. This is incorrect, as the peeled hop is still part of the original onion message. This will cause incorrect payload parsing for any subsequent hops within the same onion message, leading to forwarding failures.
| iterator := makeSphinxHopIterator( | |
| r.router, onionPkt, sphinxPacket, blindingKit, r.rHash, false, | |
| ) | |
| iterator := makeSphinxHopIterator( | |
| r.router, onionPkt, sphinxPacket, blindingKit, r.rHash, isOnionMessage, | |
| ) |
| func decodeReplyPath(r io.Reader, val interface{}, buf *[8]byte, | ||
| l uint64) error { | ||
|
|
||
| if p, ok := val.(*ReplyPath); ok && l > 35 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The length check l > 35 for decoding a ReplyPath is too loose and could lead to a panic if a malformed payload is received. A ReplyPath has a fixed-size component of 67 bytes (two 33-byte public keys and a 1-byte hop count). Since a reply path must contain at least one hop, and the minimum size of a hop is 35 bytes, the minimum total length is 102 bytes. A more accurate check would be to ensure the length is at least 67 bytes to cover the fixed-size part before attempting to decode it.
| if p, ok := val.(*ReplyPath); ok && l > 35 { | |
| if p, ok := val.(*ReplyPath); ok && l >= 67 { |
| *lnwire.OnionMessage: | ||
|
|
||
| discStream.AddMsg(msg) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This case statement handles lnwire.OnionMessage by sending it to the discStream, which is intended for gossip messages. However, onion messages should be handled by the onionMessageEndpoint via the msgRouter before this switch statement is reached. This creates a confusing situation. If the router handles the message correctly, this code is unreachable. If the router fails for some reason, the message will be incorrectly routed to the gossiper. This case should be removed to avoid potential bugs and improve clarity.
|
@gijswijs, remember to re-request review from reviewers when ready |
With this PR we add basic forwarding functionality for onion messages. It builds on PR #9868.
It adds
OnionMessagePayloadstruct to thelnwirepackage.It also depends on the not yet merged (PR 68)[https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-onion/pull/68] in the
lightning-onionpackage. For now it uses that package from a forked version.The
msgmuxendpoint for onion messages is updated to parse the onion message packet, and forward the onion based on the acquired information.The
SubscribeOnionMessagesendpoint is updated to pass along any decrypted information. This endpoint is currently solely meant for itests, although it could have practical use in the future.