Skip to content
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

Add PaymentId authentication to public API #3242

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 19, 2024
Merged

Add PaymentId authentication to public API #3242

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
fa6c058
Return a Result from verify_payment_id
jkczyz Aug 16, 2024
5bee20e
Add PaymentId authentication to public API
jkczyz Aug 14, 2024
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
21 changes: 19 additions & 2 deletions lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ use bitcoin::key::constants::SECRET_KEY_SIZE;
use bitcoin::network::Network;

use bitcoin::hashes::Hash;
use bitcoin::hashes::hmac::Hmac;
use bitcoin::hashes::sha256::Hash as Sha256;
use bitcoin::hash_types::{BlockHash, Txid};

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -413,6 +414,22 @@ pub struct PaymentId(pub [u8; Self::LENGTH]);
impl PaymentId {
/// Number of bytes in the id.
pub const LENGTH: usize = 32;

/// Constructs an HMAC to include in [`OffersContext::OutboundPayment`] for the payment id
/// along with the given [`Nonce`].
pub fn hmac_for_offer_payment(
&self, nonce: Nonce, expanded_key: &inbound_payment::ExpandedKey,
) -> Hmac<Sha256> {
signer::hmac_for_payment_id(*self, nonce, expanded_key)
}

/// Authenticates the payment id using an HMAC and a [`Nonce`] taken from an
/// [`OffersContext::OutboundPayment`].
pub fn verify(
&self, hmac: Hmac<Sha256>, nonce: Nonce, expanded_key: &inbound_payment::ExpandedKey,
) -> Result<(), ()> {
signer::verify_payment_id(*self, hmac, nonce, expanded_key)
}
}

impl Writeable for PaymentId {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -9024,7 +9041,7 @@ where
};
let invoice_request = builder.build_and_sign()?;

let hmac = signer::hmac_for_payment_id(payment_id, nonce, expanded_key);
let hmac = payment_id.hmac_for_offer_payment(nonce, expanded_key);
let context = OffersContext::OutboundPayment { payment_id, nonce, hmac: Some(hmac) };
let reply_paths = self.create_blinded_paths(context)
.map_err(|_| Bolt12SemanticError::MissingPaths)?;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -10900,7 +10917,7 @@ where

match context {
Some(OffersContext::OutboundPayment { payment_id, nonce, hmac: Some(hmac) }) => {
if signer::verify_payment_id(payment_id, hmac, nonce, expanded_key) {
if let Ok(()) = payment_id.verify(hmac, nonce, expanded_key) {
self.abandon_payment_with_reason(
payment_id, PaymentFailureReason::InvoiceRequestRejected,
);
Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions lightning/src/offers/signer.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -410,6 +410,6 @@ pub(crate) fn hmac_for_payment_id(

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Re: hmac_for_offer call above -- it looks like ExpandedKey::hmac_for_offer docs need an update since it is only supposed to be used to construct offer metadata atm. It almost looks like we should have used a new key for InvoiceError verification, though I might be missing a prior discussion.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right, we are using it for both offer metadata and payer metadata. I think we were fine with this because we add different inputs for each use case. @TheBlueMatt Is that correct?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yea, we use a different IV (which is always in the same position in the data being hashed) so its fine.

pub(crate) fn verify_payment_id(
payment_id: PaymentId, hmac: Hmac<Sha256>, nonce: Nonce, expanded_key: &ExpandedKey,
) -> bool {
hmac_for_payment_id(payment_id, nonce, expanded_key) == hmac
) -> Result<(), ()> {
if hmac_for_payment_id(payment_id, nonce, expanded_key) == hmac { Ok(()) } else { Err(()) }
}
Loading