← Watch feed
Rename ChannelContext::cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number
Public commit record
63/100 · Adequate
What the developer wrote
Authored by Jeffrey Czyz
Rename ChannelContext::cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number
To align with the "current" and "next" nomenclature used by
HolderCommitmentPoint, update the naming of the counterparty commitment
transaction number field to use "next" instead of "current".
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
What changed, and why it matters
This commit is a simple rename of an internal variable from 'cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number' to 'counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number' to make the naming more consistent with other parts of the code. There are no functional changes, no bug fixes, and no security implications.
Recommended action
No action required; this is a non-functional refactor.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The commit renames a single field in ChannelContext and updates all references throughout lightning/src/ln/channel.rs. The diff shows purely mechanical substitutions with no logic changes, arithmetic changes, or control-flow changes. The field’s semantics remain identical; only the identifier is changed to better reflect that it tracks the next (not current) counterparty commitment transaction number.
Changed components
lightning/src/ln/channel.rsInspect captured patch +33 / −33
diff --git a/lightning/src/ln/channel.rs b/lightning/src/ln/channel.rs
index e637f44..f121d28 100644
--- a/lightning/src/ln/channel.rs
+++ b/lightning/src/ln/channel.rs
@@ -2525,7 +2525,7 @@ where
// Our commitment numbers start at 2^48-1 and count down, whereas the ones used in transaction
// generation start at 0 and count up...this simplifies some parts of implementation at the
// cost of others, but should really just be changed.
- cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number: u64,
+ counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number: u64,
pending_inbound_htlcs: Vec<InboundHTLCOutput>,
pending_outbound_htlcs: Vec<OutboundHTLCOutput>,
holding_cell_htlc_updates: Vec<HTLCUpdateAwaitingACK>,
@@ -2820,7 +2820,7 @@ where
};
let context = self.context();
let commitment_data = context.build_commitment_transaction(self.funding(),
- context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number,
+ context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number,
&context.counterparty_cur_commitment_point.unwrap(), false, false, logger);
let counterparty_initial_commitment_tx = commitment_data.tx;
let counterparty_trusted_tx = counterparty_initial_commitment_tx.trust();
@@ -2881,7 +2881,7 @@ where
counterparty_initial_commitment_tx.clone(),
);
- self.context_mut().cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number -= 1;
+ self.context_mut().counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number -= 1;
Ok((channel_monitor, counterparty_initial_commitment_tx))
}
@@ -3246,7 +3246,7 @@ where
shutdown_scriptpubkey,
destination_script,
- cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number: INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER,
+ counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number: INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER,
pending_inbound_htlcs: Vec::new(),
pending_outbound_htlcs: Vec::new(),
@@ -3482,7 +3482,7 @@ where
shutdown_scriptpubkey,
destination_script,
- cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number: INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER,
+ counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number: INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER,
pending_inbound_htlcs: Vec::new(),
pending_outbound_htlcs: Vec::new(),
@@ -5558,7 +5558,7 @@ where
if is_splice {
debug_assert_eq!(
holder_commitment_transaction_number,
- self.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number,
+ self.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number,
);
// TODO(splicing) Forced error, as the use case is not complete
return Err(msgs::TxAbort {
@@ -5590,7 +5590,7 @@ where
&self, holder_commitment_transaction_number: u64, msg_name: &str,
) {
if self.commitment_secrets.get_min_seen_secret() != (1 << 48)
- || self.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number != INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER
+ || self.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number != INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER
|| holder_commitment_transaction_number != INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER
{
debug_assert!(
@@ -5608,7 +5608,7 @@ where
SP::Target: SignerProvider,
L::Target: Logger,
{
- let mut commitment_number = self.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number;
+ let mut commitment_number = self.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number;
let mut commitment_point = self.counterparty_cur_commitment_point.unwrap();
// Use the previous commitment number and point when splicing since they shouldn't change.
@@ -6776,11 +6776,11 @@ where
// They probably disconnected/reconnected and re-sent the channel_ready, which is
// required, or they're sending a fresh SCID alias.
let expected_point =
- if self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number == INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - 1 {
+ if self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number == INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - 1 {
// If they haven't ever sent an updated point, the point they send should match
// the current one.
self.context.counterparty_cur_commitment_point
- } else if self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number == INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - 2 {
+ } else if self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number == INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - 2 {
// If we've advanced the commitment number once, the second commitment point is
// at `counterparty_prev_commitment_point`, which is not yet revoked.
debug_assert!(self.context.counterparty_prev_commitment_point.is_some());
@@ -7027,7 +7027,7 @@ where
.context
.build_commitment_transaction(
pending_splice_funding,
- self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
+ self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
&self.context.counterparty_prev_commitment_point.unwrap(),
false,
false,
@@ -7650,7 +7650,7 @@ where
ChannelSignerType::Ecdsa(ecdsa) => {
ecdsa
.validate_counterparty_revocation(
- self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
+ self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
&secret,
)
.map_err(|_| {
@@ -7665,7 +7665,7 @@ where
self.context
.commitment_secrets
.provide_secret(
- self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
+ self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
msg.per_commitment_secret,
)
.map_err(|_| {
@@ -7675,7 +7675,7 @@ where
let mut monitor_update = ChannelMonitorUpdate {
update_id: self.context.latest_monitor_update_id,
updates: vec![ChannelMonitorUpdateStep::CommitmentSecret {
- idx: self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
+ idx: self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
secret: msg.per_commitment_secret,
}],
channel_id: Some(self.context.channel_id()),
@@ -7690,7 +7690,7 @@ where
self.context.counterparty_prev_commitment_point =
self.context.counterparty_cur_commitment_point;
self.context.counterparty_cur_commitment_point = Some(msg.next_per_commitment_point);
- self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number -= 1;
+ self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number -= 1;
if self.context.announcement_sigs_state == AnnouncementSigsState::Committed {
self.context.announcement_sigs_state = AnnouncementSigsState::PeerReceived;
@@ -8429,7 +8429,7 @@ where
}
let funding_signed = if self.context.signer_pending_funding && !self.funding.is_outbound() {
let commitment_data = self.context.build_commitment_transaction(&self.funding,
- self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
+ self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
&self.context.counterparty_cur_commitment_point.unwrap(), false, false, logger);
let counterparty_initial_commitment_tx = commitment_data.tx;
self.context.get_funding_signed_msg(&self.funding.channel_transaction_parameters, logger, counterparty_initial_commitment_tx)
@@ -8795,12 +8795,12 @@ where
)));
};
- // We increment cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number only upon receipt of
+ // We increment counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number only upon receipt of
// revoke_and_ack, not on sending commitment_signed, so we add one if have
// AwaitingRemoteRevoke set, which indicates we sent a commitment_signed but haven't gotten
// the corresponding revoke_and_ack back yet.
let is_awaiting_remote_revoke = self.context.channel_state.is_awaiting_remote_revoke();
- let next_counterparty_commitment_number = INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + if is_awaiting_remote_revoke { 1 } else { 0 };
+ let next_counterparty_commitment_number = INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number + if is_awaiting_remote_revoke { 1 } else { 0 };
let channel_ready = if msg.next_local_commitment_number == 1 && INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - self.holder_commitment_point.next_transaction_number() == 1 {
// We should never have to worry about MonitorUpdateInProgress resending ChannelReady
@@ -9631,12 +9631,12 @@ where
}
pub fn get_cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number(&self) -> u64 {
- self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 1
+ self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number + 1
- if self.context.channel_state.is_awaiting_remote_revoke() { 1 } else { 0 }
}
pub fn get_revoked_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number(&self) -> u64 {
- let ret = self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 2;
+ let ret = self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number + 2;
debug_assert_eq!(self.context.commitment_secrets.get_min_seen_secret(), ret);
ret
}
@@ -9754,7 +9754,7 @@ where
return true;
}
if self.holder_commitment_point.next_transaction_number() == INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - 1 &&
- self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number == INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - 1 {
+ self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number == INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - 1 {
// If we're a 0-conf channel, we'll move beyond AwaitingChannelReady immediately even while
// waiting for the initial monitor persistence. Thus, we check if our commitment
// transaction numbers have both been iterated only exactly once (for the
@@ -10541,7 +10541,7 @@ where
#[rustfmt::skip]
fn get_channel_reestablish<L: Deref>(&mut self, logger: &L) -> msgs::ChannelReestablish where L::Target: Logger {
assert!(self.context.channel_state.is_peer_disconnected());
- assert_ne!(self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number, INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER);
+ assert_ne!(self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number, INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER);
// This is generally the first function which gets called on any given channel once we're
// up and running normally. Thus, we take this opportunity to attempt to resolve the
// `holder_commitment_point` to get any keys which we are currently missing.
@@ -10556,8 +10556,8 @@ where
// valid, and valid in fuzzing mode's arbitrary validity criteria:
let mut pk = [2; 33]; pk[1] = 0xff;
let dummy_pubkey = PublicKey::from_slice(&pk).unwrap();
- let remote_last_secret = if self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 1 < INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER {
- let remote_last_secret = self.context.commitment_secrets.get_secret(self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 2).unwrap();
+ let remote_last_secret = if self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number + 1 < INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER {
+ let remote_last_secret = self.context.commitment_secrets.get_secret(self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number + 2).unwrap();
log_trace!(logger, "Enough info to generate a Data Loss Protect with per_commitment_secret {} for channel {}", log_bytes!(remote_last_secret), &self.context.channel_id());
remote_last_secret
} else {
@@ -10580,10 +10580,10 @@ where
// receive, however we track it by the next commitment number for a remote transaction
// (which is one further, as they always revoke previous commitment transaction, not
// the one we send) so we have to decrement by 1. Note that if
- // cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number is INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER we will have
+ // counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number is INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER we will have
// dropped this channel on disconnect as it hasn't yet reached AwaitingChannelReady so we can't
// overflow here.
- next_remote_commitment_number: INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number - 1,
+ next_remote_commitment_number: INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number - 1,
your_last_per_commitment_secret: remote_last_secret,
my_current_per_commitment_point: dummy_pubkey,
next_funding_txid: self.maybe_get_next_funding_txid(),
@@ -11202,7 +11202,7 @@ where
ChannelMonitorUpdateStep::LatestCounterpartyCommitmentTXInfo {
commitment_txid: counterparty_commitment_tx.trust().txid(),
htlc_outputs,
- commitment_number: self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number,
+ commitment_number: self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number,
their_per_commitment_point: self.context.counterparty_cur_commitment_point.unwrap(),
feerate_per_kw: Some(counterparty_commitment_tx.feerate_per_kw()),
to_broadcaster_value_sat: Some(counterparty_commitment_tx.to_broadcaster_value_sat()),
@@ -11259,7 +11259,7 @@ where
L::Target: Logger,
{
let commitment_data = self.context.build_commitment_transaction(
- funding, self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number,
+ funding, self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number,
&self.context.counterparty_cur_commitment_point.unwrap(), false, true, logger,
);
let counterparty_commitment_tx = commitment_data.tx;
@@ -11310,7 +11310,7 @@ where
self.build_commitment_no_state_update(funding, logger);
let commitment_data = self.context.build_commitment_transaction(
- funding, self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number,
+ funding, self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number,
&self.context.counterparty_cur_commitment_point.unwrap(), false, true, logger,
);
let counterparty_commitment_tx = commitment_data.tx;
@@ -11879,7 +11879,7 @@ where
#[rustfmt::skip]
fn get_funding_created_msg<L: Deref>(&mut self, logger: &L) -> Option<msgs::FundingCreated> where L::Target: Logger {
let commitment_data = self.context.build_commitment_transaction(&self.funding,
- self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number,
+ self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number,
&self.context.counterparty_cur_commitment_point.unwrap(), false, false, logger);
let counterparty_initial_commitment_tx = commitment_data.tx;
let signature = match &self.context.holder_signer {
@@ -12910,7 +12910,7 @@ where
self.context.destination_script.write(writer)?;
self.holder_commitment_point.next_transaction_number().write(writer)?;
- self.context.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number.write(writer)?;
+ self.context.counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number.write(writer)?;
self.funding.value_to_self_msat.write(writer)?;
let mut dropped_inbound_htlcs = 0;
@@ -13341,7 +13341,7 @@ where
let destination_script = Readable::read(reader)?;
let holder_commitment_next_transaction_number = Readable::read(reader)?;
- let cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number = Readable::read(reader)?;
+ let counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number = Readable::read(reader)?;
let value_to_self_msat = Readable::read(reader)?;
let pending_inbound_htlc_count: u64 = Readable::read(reader)?;
@@ -13973,7 +13973,7 @@ where
shutdown_scriptpubkey,
destination_script,
- cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number,
+ counterparty_next_commitment_transaction_number,
holder_max_accepted_htlcs,
pending_inbound_htlcs,
Risk score
Our methodology →Why this scored 15/100
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.