AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 37 Bitcoin

Abandon pending quiescent action upon shutdown initiation

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Wilmer Paulino

85/100 · Strong
Abandon pending quiescent action upon shutdown initiation

Otherwise, now that we no longer have the awaiting quiescence state
flag, we may end up sending `stfu` for a channel we intend to close.
✓ 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 change fixes a state-handling bug in the Lightning Dev Kit where a channel that is about to be closed could still try to enter a 'quiet' negotiation phase used for splicing (modifying a channel's funds). After a recent refactor removed an 'awaiting quiescence' flag, the code could send a 'stfu' (stop, wait) message for a channel the user actually wants to shut down. The patch makes shutdown cleanly abandon any pending splice/quiescent action and notify the user with a SpliceFailed event. It is a protocol-correctness and user-experience fix rather than a direct funds-loss vulnerability.

Recommended action

Treat as a recommended bug-fix patch. Reviewers should confirm that abandon_quiescent_action is invoked from every shutdown entry point and that no other quiescent state (e.g., from dual-funded or future splice variants) is left dangling. Users running nodes with splicing enabled should upgrade to avoid stuck splice states and unexpected stfu traffic during channel close.

Security signals we found

01

Protocol state inconsistency: shutdown initiation no longer protected by awaiting-quiescence flag

02

Potential sending of stfu for a channel that is closing

03

Missing cleanup of pending splice state on shutdown

04

New event emission to inform caller of abandoned splice funding inputs/outputs

05

Regression test added for both local and remote shutdown cases

Risk score

Why this scored 37/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 5/25
Stealth signal 6/15
Affected reach 7/15
Confidence 7/10
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.