AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 18 Bitcoin

bookkeeper: restore limit on asking for all channelmoves at once.

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Rusty Russell

85/100 · Strong
bookkeeper: restore limit on asking for all channelmoves at once.

Now we've found all the issues, the latency spike (4 seconds on my laptop)
for querying 2M elements remains.

Restore the limited sampling which we reverted, but make it 10,000 now.

This doesn't help our worst-case latency, because sql still asks for all 2M entries on
first access. We address that next.

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

What changed, and why it matters

This is a performance fix for the bookkeeper plugin. It changes how the plugin asks Core Lightning for lists of channel movements, requesting them in batches of 10,000 instead of all at once. The commit message says this avoids a multi-second delay when there are millions of entries. There is no direct security vulnerability here, but very large unbounded queries can contribute to denial-of-service-like latency or memory pressure, so the patch is defensively relevant.

Recommended action

Treat as a routine performance and availability hardening patch. No urgent security action required. Users running nodes with very large channel move histories may notice reduced startup/refresh latency. Continue monitoring for the follow-up SQL-level optimization mentioned in the commit message.

Security signals we found

01

Unbounded RPC query replaced with paginated/batched query

02

Latency spike (~4 seconds) with 2M records reduced by batching

03

Potential denial-of-service vector via large datastore/channelmove sets

04

No input validation, authentication, or cryptographic changes

Risk score

Why this scored 18/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 2/30
Exploitability 1/25
Stealth signal 1/15
Affected reach 2/15
Confidence 8/10
Evidence quality 4/5
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.