mirror of
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd.git
synced 2025-07-28 22:02:38 +02:00
We now remove the peer from `peerChanInfo` if this peer doesn't have channels with us. Also patched a unit test for `removePeerAccess`.
814 lines
24 KiB
Go
814 lines
24 KiB
Go
package lnd
|
|
|
|
import (
|
|
"context"
|
|
"testing"
|
|
|
|
"github.com/btcsuite/btcd/btcec/v2"
|
|
"github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/channeldb"
|
|
"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
// assertInboundConnection asserts that we're able to accept an inbound
|
|
// connection successfully without any access permissions being violated.
|
|
func assertInboundConnection(t *testing.T, a *accessMan,
|
|
remotePub *btcec.PublicKey, status peerAccessStatus) {
|
|
|
|
remotePubSer := string(remotePub.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
|
|
isSlotAvailable, err := a.checkAcceptIncomingConn(remotePub)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
require.True(t, isSlotAvailable)
|
|
|
|
peerAccess, err := a.assignPeerPerms(remotePub)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
require.Equal(t, status, peerAccess)
|
|
|
|
a.addPeerAccess(remotePub, peerAccess, true)
|
|
peerScore, ok := a.peerScores[remotePubSer]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
require.Equal(t, status, peerScore.state)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func assertAccessState(t *testing.T, a *accessMan, remotePub *btcec.PublicKey,
|
|
expectedStatus peerAccessStatus) {
|
|
|
|
remotePubSer := string(remotePub.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
peerScore, ok := a.peerScores[remotePubSer]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
require.Equal(t, expectedStatus, peerScore.state)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestAccessManRestrictedSlots tests that the configurable number of
|
|
// restricted slots are properly allocated. It also tests that certain peers
|
|
// with access permissions are allowed to bypass the slot mechanism.
|
|
func TestAccessManRestrictedSlots(t *testing.T) {
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
// We'll pre-populate the map to mock the database fetch. We'll make
|
|
// three peers. One has an open/closed channel. One has both an open
|
|
// / closed channel and a pending channel. The last one has only a
|
|
// pending channel.
|
|
peerPriv1, err := btcec.NewPrivateKey()
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
peerKey1 := peerPriv1.PubKey()
|
|
peerKeySer1 := string(peerKey1.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
|
|
peerPriv2, err := btcec.NewPrivateKey()
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
peerKey2 := peerPriv2.PubKey()
|
|
peerKeySer2 := string(peerKey2.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
|
|
peerPriv3, err := btcec.NewPrivateKey()
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
peerKey3 := peerPriv3.PubKey()
|
|
peerKeySer3 := string(peerKey3.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
|
|
var (
|
|
peer1PendingCount = 0
|
|
peer2PendingCount = 1
|
|
peer3PendingCount = 1
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
initPerms := func() (map[string]channeldb.ChanCount, error) {
|
|
return map[string]channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
peerKeySer1: {
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: true,
|
|
PendingOpenCount: uint64(peer1PendingCount),
|
|
},
|
|
peerKeySer2: {
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: true,
|
|
PendingOpenCount: uint64(peer2PendingCount),
|
|
},
|
|
peerKeySer3: {
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: false,
|
|
PendingOpenCount: uint64(peer3PendingCount),
|
|
},
|
|
}, nil
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
disconnect := func(*btcec.PublicKey) (bool, error) {
|
|
return false, nil
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
cfg := &accessManConfig{
|
|
initAccessPerms: initPerms,
|
|
shouldDisconnect: disconnect,
|
|
maxRestrictedSlots: 1,
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
a, err := newAccessMan(cfg)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
|
|
// Check that the peerChanInfo map is correctly populated with three
|
|
// peers.
|
|
require.Equal(t, 0, int(a.numRestricted))
|
|
require.Equal(t, 3, len(a.peerChanInfo))
|
|
|
|
peerCount1, ok := a.peerChanInfo[peerKeySer1]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
require.True(t, peerCount1.HasOpenOrClosedChan)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peer1PendingCount, int(peerCount1.PendingOpenCount))
|
|
|
|
peerCount2, ok := a.peerChanInfo[peerKeySer2]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
require.True(t, peerCount2.HasOpenOrClosedChan)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peer2PendingCount, int(peerCount2.PendingOpenCount))
|
|
|
|
peerCount3, ok := a.peerChanInfo[peerKeySer3]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
require.False(t, peerCount3.HasOpenOrClosedChan)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peer3PendingCount, int(peerCount3.PendingOpenCount))
|
|
|
|
// We'll now start to connect the peers. We'll add a new fourth peer
|
|
// that will take up the restricted slot. The first three peers should
|
|
// be able to bypass this restricted slot mechanism.
|
|
peerPriv4, err := btcec.NewPrivateKey()
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
peerKey4 := peerPriv4.PubKey()
|
|
|
|
// Follow the normal process of an incoming connection. We check if we
|
|
// can accommodate this peer in checkAcceptIncomingConn and then we
|
|
// assign its access permissions and then insert into the map.
|
|
assertInboundConnection(t, a, peerKey4, peerStatusRestricted)
|
|
|
|
// Connect the three peers. This should happen without any issue.
|
|
assertInboundConnection(t, a, peerKey1, peerStatusProtected)
|
|
assertInboundConnection(t, a, peerKey2, peerStatusProtected)
|
|
assertInboundConnection(t, a, peerKey3, peerStatusTemporary)
|
|
|
|
// Check that a pending-open channel promotes the restricted peer.
|
|
err = a.newPendingOpenChan(peerKey4)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
assertAccessState(t, a, peerKey4, peerStatusTemporary)
|
|
|
|
// Assert that accessman's internal state is updated with peer4. We
|
|
// expect this new peer to have 1 pending open count.
|
|
peerCount4, ok := a.peerChanInfo[string(peerKey4.SerializeCompressed())]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
require.False(t, peerCount4.HasOpenOrClosedChan)
|
|
require.Equal(t, 1, int(peerCount4.PendingOpenCount))
|
|
|
|
// Check that an open channel promotes the temporary peer.
|
|
err = a.newOpenChan(peerKey3)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
assertAccessState(t, a, peerKey3, peerStatusProtected)
|
|
|
|
// Assert that accessman's internal state is updated with peer3. We
|
|
// expect this existing peer to decrement its pending open count and the
|
|
// flag `HasOpenOrClosedChan` should be true.
|
|
peerCount3, ok = a.peerChanInfo[peerKeySer3]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
require.True(t, peerCount3.HasOpenOrClosedChan)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peer3PendingCount-1, int(peerCount3.PendingOpenCount))
|
|
|
|
// We should be able to accommodate a new peer.
|
|
peerPriv5, err := btcec.NewPrivateKey()
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
peerKey5 := peerPriv5.PubKey()
|
|
|
|
assertInboundConnection(t, a, peerKey5, peerStatusRestricted)
|
|
|
|
// Check that a pending-close channel event for peer 4 demotes the
|
|
// peer.
|
|
err = a.newPendingCloseChan(peerKey4)
|
|
require.ErrorIs(t, err, ErrNoMoreRestrictedAccessSlots)
|
|
|
|
// Assert that peer4 is removed.
|
|
_, ok = a.peerChanInfo[string(peerKey4.SerializeCompressed())]
|
|
require.False(t, ok)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestAssignPeerPerms asserts that the peer's access status is correctly
|
|
// assigned.
|
|
func TestAssignPeerPerms(t *testing.T) {
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
// genPeerPub is a helper closure that generates a random public key.
|
|
genPeerPub := func() *btcec.PublicKey {
|
|
peerPriv, err := btcec.NewPrivateKey()
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
|
|
return peerPriv.PubKey()
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
disconnect := func(_ *btcec.PublicKey) (bool, error) {
|
|
return true, nil
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
noDisconnect := func(_ *btcec.PublicKey) (bool, error) {
|
|
return false, nil
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
var testCases = []struct {
|
|
name string
|
|
peerPub *btcec.PublicKey
|
|
chanCount channeldb.ChanCount
|
|
shouldDisconnect func(*btcec.PublicKey) (bool, error)
|
|
numRestricted int
|
|
|
|
expectedStatus peerAccessStatus
|
|
expectedErr error
|
|
}{
|
|
// peer1 has a channel with us, and we expect it to have a
|
|
// protected status.
|
|
{
|
|
name: "peer with channels",
|
|
peerPub: genPeerPub(),
|
|
chanCount: channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: true,
|
|
},
|
|
shouldDisconnect: noDisconnect,
|
|
expectedStatus: peerStatusProtected,
|
|
expectedErr: nil,
|
|
},
|
|
// peer2 has a channel open and a pending channel with us, we
|
|
// expect it to have a protected status.
|
|
{
|
|
name: "peer with channels and pending channels",
|
|
peerPub: genPeerPub(),
|
|
chanCount: channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: true,
|
|
PendingOpenCount: 1,
|
|
},
|
|
shouldDisconnect: noDisconnect,
|
|
expectedStatus: peerStatusProtected,
|
|
expectedErr: nil,
|
|
},
|
|
// peer3 has a pending channel with us, and we expect it to have
|
|
// a temporary status.
|
|
{
|
|
name: "peer with pending channels",
|
|
peerPub: genPeerPub(),
|
|
chanCount: channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: false,
|
|
PendingOpenCount: 1,
|
|
},
|
|
shouldDisconnect: noDisconnect,
|
|
expectedStatus: peerStatusTemporary,
|
|
expectedErr: nil,
|
|
},
|
|
// peer4 has no channel with us, and we expect it to have a
|
|
// restricted status.
|
|
{
|
|
name: "peer with no channels",
|
|
peerPub: genPeerPub(),
|
|
chanCount: channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: false,
|
|
PendingOpenCount: 0,
|
|
},
|
|
shouldDisconnect: noDisconnect,
|
|
expectedStatus: peerStatusRestricted,
|
|
expectedErr: nil,
|
|
},
|
|
// peer5 has no channel with us, and we expect it to have a
|
|
// restricted status. We also expect the error `ErrGossiperBan`
|
|
// to be returned given we will use a mocked `shouldDisconnect`
|
|
// in this test to disconnect on peer5 only.
|
|
{
|
|
name: "peer with no channels and banned",
|
|
peerPub: genPeerPub(),
|
|
chanCount: channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: false,
|
|
PendingOpenCount: 0,
|
|
},
|
|
shouldDisconnect: disconnect,
|
|
expectedStatus: peerStatusRestricted,
|
|
expectedErr: ErrGossiperBan,
|
|
},
|
|
// peer6 has no channel with us, and we expect it to have a
|
|
// restricted status. Since this peer is seen, we don't expect
|
|
// the error `ErrNoMoreRestrictedAccessSlots` to be returned.
|
|
{
|
|
name: "peer with no channels and restricted",
|
|
peerPub: genPeerPub(),
|
|
chanCount: channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: false,
|
|
PendingOpenCount: 0,
|
|
},
|
|
shouldDisconnect: noDisconnect,
|
|
numRestricted: 1,
|
|
|
|
expectedStatus: peerStatusRestricted,
|
|
expectedErr: nil,
|
|
},
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
for _, tc := range testCases {
|
|
t.Run(tc.name, func(t *testing.T) {
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
peerStr := string(tc.peerPub.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
|
|
initPerms := func() (map[string]channeldb.ChanCount,
|
|
error) {
|
|
|
|
return map[string]channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
peerStr: tc.chanCount,
|
|
}, nil
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
cfg := &accessManConfig{
|
|
initAccessPerms: initPerms,
|
|
shouldDisconnect: tc.shouldDisconnect,
|
|
maxRestrictedSlots: 1,
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
a, err := newAccessMan(cfg)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
|
|
// Initialize the internal state of the accessman.
|
|
a.numRestricted = int64(tc.numRestricted)
|
|
|
|
status, err := a.assignPeerPerms(tc.peerPub)
|
|
require.Equal(t, tc.expectedStatus, status)
|
|
require.ErrorIs(t, tc.expectedErr, err)
|
|
})
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestAssignPeerPermsBypassRestriction asserts that when a peer has a channel
|
|
// with us, either it being open, pending, or closed, no restriction is placed
|
|
// on this peer.
|
|
func TestAssignPeerPermsBypassRestriction(t *testing.T) {
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
// genPeerPub is a helper closure that generates a random public key.
|
|
genPeerPub := func() *btcec.PublicKey {
|
|
peerPriv, err := btcec.NewPrivateKey()
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
|
|
return peerPriv.PubKey()
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Mock shouldDisconnect to always return true and assert that it has no
|
|
// effect on the peer.
|
|
disconnect := func(_ *btcec.PublicKey) (bool, error) {
|
|
return true, nil
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
var testCases = []struct {
|
|
name string
|
|
peerPub *btcec.PublicKey
|
|
chanCount channeldb.ChanCount
|
|
expectedStatus peerAccessStatus
|
|
}{
|
|
// peer1 has a channel with us, and we expect it to have a
|
|
// protected status.
|
|
{
|
|
name: "peer with channels",
|
|
peerPub: genPeerPub(),
|
|
chanCount: channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: true,
|
|
},
|
|
expectedStatus: peerStatusProtected,
|
|
},
|
|
// peer2 has a channel open and a pending channel with us, we
|
|
// expect it to have a protected status.
|
|
{
|
|
name: "peer with channels and pending channels",
|
|
peerPub: genPeerPub(),
|
|
chanCount: channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: true,
|
|
PendingOpenCount: 1,
|
|
},
|
|
expectedStatus: peerStatusProtected,
|
|
},
|
|
// peer3 has a pending channel with us, and we expect it to have
|
|
// a temporary status.
|
|
{
|
|
name: "peer with pending channels",
|
|
peerPub: genPeerPub(),
|
|
chanCount: channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: false,
|
|
PendingOpenCount: 1,
|
|
},
|
|
expectedStatus: peerStatusTemporary,
|
|
},
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
for _, tc := range testCases {
|
|
t.Run(tc.name, func(t *testing.T) {
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
peerStr := string(tc.peerPub.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
|
|
initPerms := func() (map[string]channeldb.ChanCount,
|
|
error) {
|
|
|
|
return map[string]channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
peerStr: tc.chanCount,
|
|
}, nil
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Config the accessman such that it has zero max slots
|
|
// and always return true on `shouldDisconnect`. We
|
|
// should see the peers in this test are not affected by
|
|
// these checks.
|
|
cfg := &accessManConfig{
|
|
initAccessPerms: initPerms,
|
|
shouldDisconnect: disconnect,
|
|
maxRestrictedSlots: 0,
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
a, err := newAccessMan(cfg)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
|
|
status, err := a.assignPeerPerms(tc.peerPub)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
require.Equal(t, tc.expectedStatus, status)
|
|
})
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestAssignPeerPermsBypassExisting asserts that when the peer is a
|
|
// pre-existing peer, it won't be restricted.
|
|
func TestAssignPeerPermsBypassExisting(t *testing.T) {
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
// genPeerPub is a helper closure that generates a random public key.
|
|
genPeerPub := func() *btcec.PublicKey {
|
|
peerPriv, err := btcec.NewPrivateKey()
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
|
|
return peerPriv.PubKey()
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// peer1 exists in `peerChanInfo` map.
|
|
peer1 := genPeerPub()
|
|
peer1Str := string(peer1.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
|
|
// peer2 exists in `peerScores` map.
|
|
peer2 := genPeerPub()
|
|
peer2Str := string(peer2.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
|
|
// peer3 is a new peer.
|
|
peer3 := genPeerPub()
|
|
|
|
// Create params to init the accessman.
|
|
initPerms := func() (map[string]channeldb.ChanCount, error) {
|
|
return map[string]channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
peer1Str: {},
|
|
}, nil
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
disconnect := func(*btcec.PublicKey) (bool, error) {
|
|
return false, nil
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
cfg := &accessManConfig{
|
|
initAccessPerms: initPerms,
|
|
shouldDisconnect: disconnect,
|
|
maxRestrictedSlots: 0,
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
a, err := newAccessMan(cfg)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
|
|
// Add peer2 to the `peerScores`.
|
|
a.peerScores[peer2Str] = peerSlotStatus{
|
|
state: peerStatusTemporary,
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Assigning to peer1 should not return an error.
|
|
status, err := a.assignPeerPerms(peer1)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peerStatusRestricted, status)
|
|
|
|
// Assigning to peer2 should not return an error.
|
|
status, err = a.assignPeerPerms(peer2)
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peerStatusTemporary, status)
|
|
|
|
// Assigning to peer3 should return an error.
|
|
status, err = a.assignPeerPerms(peer3)
|
|
require.ErrorIs(t, err, ErrNoMoreRestrictedAccessSlots)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peerStatusRestricted, status)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestHasPeer asserts `hasPeer` returns the correct results.
|
|
func TestHasPeer(t *testing.T) {
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
ctx := context.Background()
|
|
|
|
// Create a testing accessMan.
|
|
a := &accessMan{
|
|
peerChanInfo: make(map[string]channeldb.ChanCount),
|
|
peerScores: make(map[string]peerSlotStatus),
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// peer1 exists with an open channel.
|
|
peer1 := "peer1"
|
|
a.peerChanInfo[peer1] = channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: true,
|
|
}
|
|
peer1Access := peerStatusProtected
|
|
|
|
// peer2 exists with a pending channel.
|
|
peer2 := "peer2"
|
|
a.peerChanInfo[peer2] = channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
PendingOpenCount: 1,
|
|
}
|
|
peer2Access := peerStatusTemporary
|
|
|
|
// peer3 exists without any channels.
|
|
peer3 := "peer3"
|
|
a.peerChanInfo[peer3] = channeldb.ChanCount{}
|
|
peer3Access := peerStatusRestricted
|
|
|
|
// peer4 exists with a score.
|
|
peer4 := "peer4"
|
|
peer4Access := peerStatusTemporary
|
|
a.peerScores[peer4] = peerSlotStatus{state: peer4Access}
|
|
|
|
// peer5 doesn't exist.
|
|
peer5 := "peer5"
|
|
|
|
// We now assert `hasPeer` returns the correct results.
|
|
//
|
|
// peer1 should be found with peerStatusProtected.
|
|
access, found := a.hasPeer(ctx, peer1)
|
|
require.True(t, found)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peer1Access, access)
|
|
|
|
// peer2 should be found with peerStatusTemporary.
|
|
access, found = a.hasPeer(ctx, peer2)
|
|
require.True(t, found)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peer2Access, access)
|
|
|
|
// peer3 should be found with peerStatusRestricted.
|
|
access, found = a.hasPeer(ctx, peer3)
|
|
require.True(t, found)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peer3Access, access)
|
|
|
|
// peer4 should be found with peerStatusTemporary.
|
|
access, found = a.hasPeer(ctx, peer4)
|
|
require.True(t, found)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peer4Access, access)
|
|
|
|
// peer5 should NOT be found.
|
|
access, found = a.hasPeer(ctx, peer5)
|
|
require.False(t, found)
|
|
require.Equal(t, peerStatusRestricted, access)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestAddPeerAccessInbound asserts the num of slots is correctly incremented
|
|
// only for a new inbound peer with restricted access.
|
|
func TestAddPeerAccessInbound(t *testing.T) {
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
// Create a testing accessMan.
|
|
a := &accessMan{
|
|
peerChanInfo: make(map[string]channeldb.ChanCount),
|
|
peerScores: make(map[string]peerSlotStatus),
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Create a testing key.
|
|
priv, err := btcec.NewPrivateKey()
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
pub := priv.PubKey()
|
|
pubStr := string(pub.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
|
|
// Add this peer as an inbound peer with peerStatusRestricted.
|
|
a.addPeerAccess(pub, peerStatusRestricted, true)
|
|
|
|
// Assert the accessMan's internal state.
|
|
//
|
|
// We expect to see one peer found in the score map, and one slot is
|
|
// taken, and this peer is not found in the counts map.
|
|
require.Len(t, a.peerScores, 1)
|
|
require.Equal(t, int64(1), a.numRestricted)
|
|
require.NotContains(t, a.peerChanInfo, pubStr)
|
|
|
|
// The peer should be found in the score map.
|
|
score, ok := a.peerScores[pubStr]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
|
|
expecedScore := peerSlotStatus{state: peerStatusRestricted}
|
|
require.Equal(t, expecedScore, score)
|
|
|
|
// Add this peer again, we expect the available slots to stay unchanged.
|
|
a.addPeerAccess(pub, peerStatusRestricted, true)
|
|
|
|
// Assert the internal state is not changed.
|
|
require.Len(t, a.peerScores, 1)
|
|
require.Equal(t, int64(1), a.numRestricted)
|
|
require.NotContains(t, a.peerChanInfo, pubStr)
|
|
|
|
// Reset the accessMan.
|
|
a = &accessMan{
|
|
peerChanInfo: make(map[string]channeldb.ChanCount),
|
|
peerScores: make(map[string]peerSlotStatus),
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Add this peer as an inbound peer with peerStatusTemporary.
|
|
a.addPeerAccess(pub, peerStatusTemporary, true)
|
|
|
|
// Assert the accessMan's internal state.
|
|
//
|
|
// We expect to see one peer found in the score map, and no slot is
|
|
// taken since this peer is not restricted.
|
|
require.Len(t, a.peerScores, 1)
|
|
require.Equal(t, int64(0), a.numRestricted)
|
|
|
|
// NOTE: in reality this is not possible as the peer must have been put
|
|
// into the map `peerChanInfo` before its perm can be upgraded.
|
|
require.NotContains(t, a.peerChanInfo, pubStr)
|
|
|
|
// The peer should be found in the score map.
|
|
score, ok = a.peerScores[pubStr]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
|
|
expecedScore = peerSlotStatus{state: peerStatusTemporary}
|
|
require.Equal(t, expecedScore, score)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestAddPeerAccessOutbound asserts that outbound peer is not restricted and
|
|
// its perm is upgraded when it has peerStatusRestricted.
|
|
func TestAddPeerAccessOutbound(t *testing.T) {
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
// Create a testing accessMan.
|
|
a := &accessMan{
|
|
peerChanInfo: make(map[string]channeldb.ChanCount),
|
|
peerScores: make(map[string]peerSlotStatus),
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Create a testing key.
|
|
priv, err := btcec.NewPrivateKey()
|
|
require.NoError(t, err)
|
|
pub := priv.PubKey()
|
|
pubStr := string(pub.SerializeCompressed())
|
|
|
|
// Add this peer as an outbound peer with peerStatusRestricted.
|
|
a.addPeerAccess(pub, peerStatusRestricted, false)
|
|
|
|
// Assert the accessMan's internal state.
|
|
//
|
|
// We expect to see one peer found in the score map, and no slot is
|
|
// taken, and this peer is found in the counts map.
|
|
require.Len(t, a.peerScores, 1)
|
|
require.Equal(t, int64(0), a.numRestricted)
|
|
require.Contains(t, a.peerChanInfo, pubStr)
|
|
|
|
// The peer should be found in the score map.
|
|
score, ok := a.peerScores[pubStr]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
|
|
// Its perm should be upgraded to temporary.
|
|
expecedScore := peerSlotStatus{state: peerStatusTemporary}
|
|
require.Equal(t, expecedScore, score)
|
|
|
|
// The peer should be found in the peer counts map.
|
|
count, ok := a.peerChanInfo[pubStr]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
|
|
// The peer's count should be initialized correctly.
|
|
require.Zero(t, count.PendingOpenCount)
|
|
require.False(t, count.HasOpenOrClosedChan)
|
|
|
|
// Add this peer again, we expect the available slots to stay unchanged.
|
|
a.addPeerAccess(pub, peerStatusRestricted, true)
|
|
|
|
// Assert the internal state is not changed.
|
|
require.Len(t, a.peerScores, 1)
|
|
require.Equal(t, int64(0), a.numRestricted)
|
|
require.Contains(t, a.peerChanInfo, pubStr)
|
|
|
|
// Reset the accessMan.
|
|
a = &accessMan{
|
|
peerChanInfo: make(map[string]channeldb.ChanCount),
|
|
peerScores: make(map[string]peerSlotStatus),
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Add this peer as an inbound peer with peerStatusTemporary.
|
|
a.addPeerAccess(pub, peerStatusTemporary, true)
|
|
|
|
// Assert the accessMan's internal state.
|
|
//
|
|
// We expect to see one peer found in the score map, and no slot is
|
|
// taken since this peer is not restricted.
|
|
require.Len(t, a.peerScores, 1)
|
|
require.Equal(t, int64(0), a.numRestricted)
|
|
|
|
// NOTE: in reality this is not possible as the peer must have been put
|
|
// into the map `peerChanInfo` before its perm can be upgraded.
|
|
require.NotContains(t, a.peerChanInfo, pubStr)
|
|
|
|
// The peer should be found in the score map.
|
|
score, ok = a.peerScores[pubStr]
|
|
require.True(t, ok)
|
|
|
|
expecedScore = peerSlotStatus{state: peerStatusTemporary}
|
|
require.Equal(t, expecedScore, score)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestRemovePeerAccess asserts `removePeerAccess` correctly update the
|
|
// accessman's internal state based on the peer's status.
|
|
func TestRemovePeerAccess(t *testing.T) {
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
// Create a testing accessMan.
|
|
a := &accessMan{
|
|
peerChanInfo: make(map[string]channeldb.ChanCount),
|
|
peerScores: make(map[string]peerSlotStatus),
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// numRestrictedExpected specifies the final value to expect once the
|
|
// test finishes.
|
|
var numRestrictedExpected int
|
|
|
|
// peer1 exists with an open channel, which should not be removed. Since
|
|
// it has protected status, the numRestricted should stay unchanged.
|
|
peer1 := "peer1"
|
|
a.peerChanInfo[peer1] = channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
HasOpenOrClosedChan: true,
|
|
}
|
|
peer1Access := peerStatusProtected
|
|
a.peerScores[peer1] = peerSlotStatus{state: peer1Access}
|
|
|
|
// peer2 exists with a pending channel, which should not be removed.
|
|
// Since it has temporary status, the numRestricted should stay
|
|
// unchanged.
|
|
peer2 := "peer2"
|
|
a.peerChanInfo[peer2] = channeldb.ChanCount{
|
|
PendingOpenCount: 1,
|
|
}
|
|
peer2Access := peerStatusTemporary
|
|
a.peerScores[peer2] = peerSlotStatus{state: peer2Access}
|
|
|
|
// peer3 exists without any channels, which will be removed. Since it
|
|
// has restricted status, the numRestricted should be decremented.
|
|
peer3 := "peer3"
|
|
a.peerChanInfo[peer3] = channeldb.ChanCount{}
|
|
peer3Access := peerStatusRestricted
|
|
a.peerScores[peer3] = peerSlotStatus{state: peer3Access}
|
|
numRestrictedExpected--
|
|
|
|
// peer4 exists with a score and a temporary status, which will be
|
|
// removed.
|
|
peer4 := "peer4"
|
|
peer4Access := peerStatusTemporary
|
|
a.peerScores[peer4] = peerSlotStatus{state: peer4Access}
|
|
|
|
// peer5 doesn't exist, removing it will be a NOOP.
|
|
peer5 := "peer5"
|
|
|
|
// We now assert `removePeerAccess` behaves as expected.
|
|
//
|
|
// Remove peer1 should change nothing.
|
|
a.removePeerAccess(peer1)
|
|
|
|
// peer1 should be removed from peerScores but not peerChanInfo.
|
|
_, found := a.peerScores[peer1]
|
|
require.False(t, found)
|
|
_, found = a.peerChanInfo[peer1]
|
|
require.True(t, found)
|
|
|
|
// Remove peer2 should change nothing.
|
|
a.removePeerAccess(peer2)
|
|
|
|
// peer2 should be removed from peerScores but not peerChanInfo.
|
|
_, found = a.peerScores[peer2]
|
|
require.False(t, found)
|
|
_, found = a.peerChanInfo[peer2]
|
|
require.True(t, found)
|
|
|
|
// Remove peer3 should remove it from the maps.
|
|
a.removePeerAccess(peer3)
|
|
|
|
// peer3 should be removed from peerScores and peerChanInfo.
|
|
_, found = a.peerScores[peer3]
|
|
require.False(t, found)
|
|
_, found = a.peerChanInfo[peer3]
|
|
require.False(t, found)
|
|
|
|
// Remove peer4 should remove it from the maps.
|
|
a.removePeerAccess(peer4)
|
|
|
|
// peer4 should be removed from peerScores and NOT be found in
|
|
// peerChanInfo.
|
|
_, found = a.peerScores[peer4]
|
|
require.False(t, found)
|
|
_, found = a.peerChanInfo[peer4]
|
|
require.False(t, found)
|
|
|
|
// Remove peer5 should be NOOP.
|
|
a.removePeerAccess(peer5)
|
|
|
|
// peer5 should NOT be found.
|
|
_, found = a.peerScores[peer5]
|
|
require.False(t, found)
|
|
_, found = a.peerChanInfo[peer5]
|
|
require.False(t, found)
|
|
|
|
// Finally, assert the numRestricted is decremented as expected. Given
|
|
// we only have peer3 which has restricted access, it should decrement
|
|
// once.
|
|
//
|
|
// NOTE: The value is actually negative here, which is allowed in
|
|
// accessman.
|
|
require.EqualValues(t, numRestrictedExpected, a.numRestricted)
|
|
}
|