AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 23 Bitcoin

askrene: make increase_flows function more generic.

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Rusty Russell

73/100 · Adequate
askrene: make increase_flows function more generic.

Rewrite it, so it properly takes into account interactions between flows
by using reservations.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit rewrites a routing helper inside Core Lightning's experimental 'askrene' plugin so it correctly accounts for overlapping payment routes when increasing payment amounts. The old code sorted routes and increased each independently, which could ignore shared channel capacity limits. The new code reserves capacity across all routes, picks the route with the most spare capacity, and stops if it cannot meet the target. There is no direct evidence this is a security fix, but incorrect capacity accounting in payment routing can lead to failed routes, stuck payments, or unintended fee/HTLC behavior.

Recommended action

Treat as a normal code-quality/robustness improvement. Reviewers should verify that the new reservation loop correctly restores reservations after each temporary removal, that tal_free(reservations) does not leave dangling pointers, and that the bool return value is handled appropriately by callers. No immediate security response is indicated by the available evidence.

Security signals we found

01

Algorithmic correctness fix in payment routing capacity reservation

02

Change from independent per-flow increases to global reservation-aware allocation

03

Potential for prior code to over-allocate across overlapping routes, causing route/payment failures or inconsistent HTLC reservations

04

No explicit security framing, CVE, or advisory in commit or supplied references

Risk score

Why this scored 23/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 5/30
Exploitability 3/25
Stealth signal 4/15
Affected reach 5/15
Confidence 4/10
Evidence quality 2/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.