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.

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

QA Report #106

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Jun 15, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

QA Report #106

code423n4 opened this issue Jun 15, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Report

01: PromiseRouter.initialize() doesn't initialize the ReentrancyUpgradable dependency

In your initialize() function you should also call the initialize() functions of all the other contracts you inherit. In this case, the ReentrancyGuardUpgradable one is missing.

Relevant code:

02: Use a two-step process for critical address changes

You already do that in a couple of spots. But, some are missing. For example, the ConnextPriceOracle contract doesn't use it to change the admin address

Relevant code:

03: Multiple open TODOs

Throughout the codebase there are multiple open TODOs.

.//contracts_forge/core/connext/facets/RoutersFacet.t.sol:53:  // TODO: test modifiers? onlyRouterOwner, onlyProposedRouterOwner, etc.
.//contracts_forge/core/connext/facets/BridgeFacet.t.sol:468:        // TODO: For some reason, balance isn't changing. Perhaps the vm.mockCall prevents this?
.//contracts_forge/core/connext/facets/BridgeFacet.t.sol:1310:  // TODO: fails if destination domain does not have an xapp router registered
.//contracts_forge/core/connext/facets/AssetFacet.t.sol:147:  // TODO: test_adminFunctions__onlyOwner ??
.//contracts_forge/core/connext/facets/RelayerFacet.t.sol:44:  // TODO: onlyRelayerFeeRouter
.//contracts_forge/Connext.t.sol:352:    // TODO Correctly calculate the message
.//contracts/core/connext/facets/BridgeFacet.sol:496:      // TODO: do we want to store a mapping of custodied token balances here?
.//contracts/core/connext/facets/BridgeFacet.sol:583:      // TODO: do we need to keep this
.//contracts/core/connext/facets/BridgeFacet.sol:1031:    // TODO: Should we call approve(0) and approve(totalRepayAmount) instead? or with a try catch to not affect gas on all cases?
.//contracts/core/connext/libraries/LibConnextStorage.sol:304:  // BridgeFacet (cont.) TODO: can we move this
.//contracts/core/connext/helpers/Executor.sol:7:// TODO: see note in below file re: npm
.//contracts/nomad-core/contracts/upgrade/UpgradeBeaconController.sol:17:// TODO: upgrade to `ProposedOwnable`
.//contracts/nomad-core/libs/ExcessivelySafeCall.sol:7:// TODO: Update to npm version when these changes are reflected
@code423n4 code423n4 added bug Something isn't working QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax labels Jun 15, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 15, 2022
@jakekidd
Copy link
Collaborator

jakekidd commented Jul 1, 2022

01: invalid - this is handled in BaseConnextFacet.init method

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants