Skip to content

splice: Clean up warning message #9359

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
ddustin wants to merge 1 commit into from
+6 −0
Closed

splice: Clean up warning message #9359

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions channeld/channeld.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4417,6 +4417,12 @@ static void splice_initiator(struct peer *peer, const u8 *inmsg)

type = fromwire_peektype(inmsg);

@Andezion Andezion Jul 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Didn't the check placed too late to do anything? Look at the top of the function -

static void splice_initiator(struct peer *peer, const u8 *inmsg)
{
	/ some code /
	struct wally_psbt *psbt = peer->splicing->current_psbt;   - on line 4412
	/ some code /
	type = fromwire_peektype(inmsg);  - on line 4418

	if (!peer->splicing) {  - and here we have new  check
		peer_failed_warn(...);
	}
}

So psbt is initialized from peer->splicing->current_psbt in the declaration block, which executes before type = fromwire_peektype(inmsg) and before the new if (!peer->splicing) check. If peer->splicing is NULL, the function already dereferences it at line 4412 and crashes - so the new check is unreachable code?

Maybe we should move the NULL check to the very first line of the function, before psbt is declared/initialized?

@ddustin ddustin Jul 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the review! You're absolutely right 🤦‍♂️, nice catch.

if (!peer->splicing) {
peer_failed_warn(peer->pps, &peer->channel_id,
"Received %s without an active splice session",
peer_wire_name(type));
}

if (type == WIRE_SPLICE_ACK) {
struct tlv_splice_ack_tlvs *splice_ack_tlvs;
if (!fromwire_splice_ack(tmpctx, inmsg,
Expand Down
Loading