Expose current dust exposure in ChannelDetails by Bortlesboat · Pull Request #4470 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning

Bortlesboat · 2026-03-08T16:35:29Z

Summary

Adds a current_dust_exposure_msat field to ChannelDetails that surfaces the current total dust exposure on a channel.

The value is the maximum of the dust exposure across the holder and counterparty commitment transactions
Includes both dust HTLC values and the commitment transaction fee component (as noted by @TheBlueMatt in Expose current dust exposure #2264, dust exposure now includes commitment tx fees, not just dust HTLCs)
Users can compare this against ChannelConfig::max_dust_htlc_exposure to monitor how close a channel is to its dust limit
Field is Option<u64>, None for objects serialized prior to 0.2.1
TLV tag 49 for backwards-compatible serialization

Implementation

Added dust_exposure_msat to AvailableBalances — computed as max(local_dust_exposure_msat, remote_dust_exposure_msat) in get_available_balances (tx_builder.rs)
When folding across multiple funding scopes (splices), takes the max dust exposure
Added current_dust_exposure_msat: Option<u64> to ChannelDetails struct, populated from the balance computation in from_channel

Fixes #2264

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-03-08T16:35:32Z

👋 I see @tankyleo was un-assigned.
If you'd like another reviewer assignment, please click here.

codecov · 2026-03-09T21:55:17Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.19%. Comparing base (4a3aaef) to head (515b244).
⚠️ Report is 97 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel_state.rs	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/routing/router.rs	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4470      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.01%   86.19%   +0.17%     
==========================================
  Files         159      160       +1     
  Lines      105430   107554    +2124     
  Branches   105430   107554    +2124     
==========================================
+ Hits        90690    92707    +2017     
+ Misses      12229    12221       -8     
- Partials     2511     2626     +115

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`86.19% <75.00%> (+0.17%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-03-11T11:18:42Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

Bortlesboat · 2026-03-12T17:29:22Z

Quick follow-up from my side: I’m treating review-required PRs as top priority this week. If you want any specific changes, rebase, or split, I can turn them around quickly.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-03-14T00:01:31Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-03-15T18:21:28Z

All the test fixture additions correctly use None for the new field (which is the right value for test data not exercising dust exposure logic), and the serialization test uses Some(150_000) to verify round-trip.

I've thoroughly reviewed every hunk in the diff. The only issue was the version string format ("0.3" vs "0.3.0") which was already flagged in the prior review. No new issues found.

No new issues found.

The only outstanding item is the version string format inconsistency ("0.3" vs "0.3.0") at lightning/src/ln/channel_state.rs:493, which was already flagged in the prior review pass and remains partially unaddressed. No new inline comments posted.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-03-16T00:02:42Z

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

Bortlesboat · 2026-03-17T14:30:04Z

Hi @tankyleo — no worries if you're busy! Could another maintainer pick this up? Happy to address any feedback quickly.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-03-18T00:02:59Z

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

tankyleo

Sorry for the delay

tankyleo · 2026-03-19T23:23:45Z

lightning/src/sign/tx_builder.rs

 		outbound_capacity_msat,
 		next_outbound_htlc_limit_msat: available_capacity_msat,
 		next_outbound_htlc_minimum_msat,
+		dust_exposure_msat,


@TheBlueMatt it's a current quirk of the tx_buider API we currently report the dust exposure on the commitment that matches the local: bool parameter in NextCommitmentStats. With this PR we'd now also take the max of both the local and the remote commitments here, and report it in AvailableBalances.

Seems ok to me for now.

Mmm, its weird that we return available_balances from get_channel_stats ignoring the local parameter but its true for the whole balances struct so...oh well.

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-03-20T01:56:06Z

lightning/src/ln/channel_state.rs

+	/// [`ChannelConfig::max_dust_htlc_exposure`] to determine whether new HTLCs can be
+	/// accepted or offered on this channel.
+	///
+	/// This field will be `None` for objects serialized with LDK versions prior to 0.2.1.


The version here says "prior to 0.2.1" but Cargo.toml has version = "0.3.0+git", so this field will first appear in 0.3.0. The previous field (funding_redeem_script) correctly says "prior to 0.2.0".

Suggested change

/// This field will be `None` for objects serialized with LDK versions prior to 0.2.1.

/// This field will be `None` for objects serialized with LDK versions prior to 0.3.0.

Yep, claude is right - this will be shipped in 0.3. We should write "0.3" here (not "0.3.0", though).

Bortlesboat · 2026-03-20T19:12:03Z

Hi — tankyleo appears to be unavailable (4 reminders sent). Could another reviewer pick this up? It's a small addition exposing dust exposure values that are already computed internally. Happy to address any feedback.

TheBlueMatt

Two small things, one that actually needs fixing, otherwise we'll land this. Thanks!

TheBlueMatt · 2026-03-22T18:13:20Z

lightning/src/ln/channel_state.rs

+	/// [`ChannelConfig::max_dust_htlc_exposure`] to determine whether new HTLCs can be
+	/// accepted or offered on this channel.
+	///
+	/// This field will be `None` for objects serialized with LDK versions prior to 0.2.1.


Yep, claude is right - this will be shipped in 0.3. We should write "0.3" here (not "0.3.0", though).

TheBlueMatt · 2026-03-22T18:15:17Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

+	/// threshold as well as any excess commitment transaction fees that contribute to dust
+	/// exposure.
+	///
+	/// See [`ChannelConfig::max_dust_htlc_exposure`] for the config knob that limits this.


nit

Suggested change

/// See [`ChannelConfig::max_dust_htlc_exposure`] for the config knob that limits this.

/// See [`ChannelConfig::max_dust_htlc_exposure`] for more information on the dust calculation and to configure a limit.

TheBlueMatt · 2026-03-22T18:27:10Z

lightning/src/sign/tx_builder.rs

 		outbound_capacity_msat,
 		next_outbound_htlc_limit_msat: available_capacity_msat,
 		next_outbound_htlc_minimum_msat,
+		dust_exposure_msat,


Mmm, its weird that we return available_balances from get_channel_stats ignoring the local parameter but its true for the whole balances struct so...oh well.

TheBlueMatt

Please feel free to squash the fixup commits down so that the git history only contains the one main commit

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from valentinewallace March 8, 2026 16:46

Bortlesboat force-pushed the feat/expose-dust-exposure branch from 06585ba to c571ad4 Compare March 9, 2026 01:31

tankyleo requested review from tankyleo and removed request for valentinewallace March 9, 2026 11:18

Bortlesboat force-pushed the feat/expose-dust-exposure branch from c571ad4 to 4f9b1e5 Compare March 9, 2026 18:25

Bortlesboat force-pushed the feat/expose-dust-exposure branch from 4f9b1e5 to 03c307d Compare March 13, 2026 04:41

Bortlesboat force-pushed the feat/expose-dust-exposure branch from 03c307d to b856d80 Compare March 15, 2026 18:19

TheBlueMatt reviewed Mar 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

TheBlueMatt removed the request for review from tankyleo March 19, 2026 20:41

tankyleo reviewed Mar 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Mar 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt reviewed Mar 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt reviewed Mar 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Expose current dust exposure in ChannelDetails

515b244

Bortlesboat force-pushed the feat/expose-dust-exposure branch from 40ce774 to 515b244 Compare March 25, 2026 17:12

	/// This field will be `None` for objects serialized with LDK versions prior to 0.2.1.
	/// This field will be `None` for objects serialized with LDK versions prior to 0.3.0.

	/// See [`ChannelConfig::max_dust_htlc_exposure`] for the config knob that limits this.
	/// See [`ChannelConfig::max_dust_htlc_exposure`] for more information on the dust calculation and to configure a limit.

Conversation

Bortlesboat commented Mar 8, 2026

Summary

Implementation

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 11, 2026

Uh oh!

Bortlesboat commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 14, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-claude-review-bot commented Mar 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Bortlesboat commented Mar 17, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tankyleo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tankyleo Mar 19, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt Mar 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ldk-claude-review-bot Mar 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt Mar 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Bortlesboat commented Mar 20, 2026

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt Mar 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt Mar 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt Mar 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

ldk-reviews-bot commented Mar 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ldk-claude-review-bot commented Mar 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading