Stricter requirements on input details for signing (fixup for #3047)#3052
Merged
t-bast merged 1 commit intosign-all-spent-utxosfrom Apr 1, 2025
Merged
Stricter requirements on input details for signing (fixup for #3047)#3052t-bast merged 1 commit intosign-all-spent-utxosfrom
t-bast merged 1 commit intosign-all-spent-utxosfrom
Conversation
We verify that details about all inputs are provided to the `sign` function. While this isn't mandatory for segwit v0, it ensures that all of our existing tests exercise this codepath and reduces the risk that we forget to provide some wallet inputs, which would result in an invalid signature which would be hard to investigate. With this change, some of the unit tests started failing, which showed that we weren't correctly setting wallet inputs in the fee-bumping case in `ReplaceableTxFunder`, which we've fixed. We also add a test in `TransactionsSpec.scala` to verify that signing fails when details about some inputs are missing.
sstone
approved these changes
Apr 1, 2025
sstone
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 1, 2025
…ds (#3047) * ChannelKeyManager: add a map of spent outputs to sign() methods This is needed to sign inputs that spend taproot outputs. These outputs are typically wallet inputs added to a transaction to bump it. * Stricter requirements on input details for signing (#3052) We verify that details about all inputs are provided to the `sign` function. While this isn't mandatory for segwit v0, it ensures that all of our existing tests exercise this codepath and reduces the risk that we forget to provide some wallet inputs, which would result in an invalid signature which would be hard to investigate. With this change, some of the unit tests started failing, which showed that we weren't correctly setting wallet inputs in the fee-bumping case in `ReplaceableTxFunder`, which we've fixed. We also add a test in `TransactionsSpec.scala` to verify that signing fails when details about some inputs are missing. --------- Co-authored-by: Bastien Teinturier <31281497+t-bast@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We verify that details about all inputs are provided to the
signfunction. While this isn't mandatory for segwit v0, it ensures that all of our existing tests exercise this codepath and reduces the risk that we forget to provide some wallet inputs, which would result in an invalid signature which would be hard to investigate.With this change, some of the unit tests started failing, which showed that we weren't correctly setting wallet inputs in the fee-bumping case in
ReplaceableTxFunder, which we've fixed.We also add a test in
TransactionsSpec.scalato verify that signing fails when details about some inputs are missing.This PR targets #3047