Skip to content

staticaddr: fix deposit recovery deadlock #954

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 23, 2025
Merged

staticaddr: fix deposit recovery deadlock #954

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
13 changes: 9 additions & 4 deletions staticaddr/deposit/manager.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -191,10 +191,15 @@ func (m *Manager) recoverDeposits(ctx context.Context) error {
}

// Send the OnRecover event to the state machine.
err = fsm.SendEvent(ctx, OnRecover, nil)
if err != nil {
log.Errorf("Error sending OnStart event: %v", err)
}
// TODO(hieblmi): Add a unit test that would fail with the
// dead-lock before the fsm was passed in.
go func(fsm *FSM) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder what the tradeoff is between having this in a go func or more asynchronous fsm actions? from what I can tell in effect it is the same?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But with most recent projects I tend to force tha actions to be asynchronous as this means we can go events only vs listening for channels everywhere where we need to interact with a blocking action

err := fsm.SendEvent(ctx, OnRecover, nil)
if err != nil {
log.Errorf("Error sending OnStart event: %v",
err)
}
}(fsm)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I propose to add a unit test that would fail with the dead-lock before this change and to make sure this goroutine doesn't leak in that test.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Given that is is a pattern we use frequently I only left a unit-test todo here.


m.mu.Lock()
m.activeDeposits[d.OutPoint] = fsm
Expand Down