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

fix: request id validation #51

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Jul 26, 2024
Merged

fix: request id validation #51

merged 10 commits into from
Jul 26, 2024

Conversation

0xJabberwock
Copy link
Member

🤖 Linear

Closes GRT-3

@0xJabberwock 0xJabberwock self-assigned this Jul 19, 2024
Copy link

linear bot commented Jul 19, 2024

GRT-3 TOB-WOND-4

Copy link
Member Author

@0xJabberwock 0xJabberwock left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TOB-WOND-4 explicitly mentions that the dispute's requestId validation issue could be found within BondEscalationResolutionModule, BondEscalationModule, PrivateERC20ResolutionModule and ERC20ResolutionModule. However, I was able to detect the lack of the same recommended check around many other modules. Should this be a concern?

Besides, other similar validations are also extendedly absent, such as comparing with the response's requestId or the dispute's responseId. Again, should this be a concern?

@@ -53,6 +53,11 @@ interface IERC20ResolutionModule is IResolutionModule {
*/
error ERC20ResolutionModule_OnlyDisputeModule();
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This custom error is not being used anywhere. 🙄

0xShaito
0xShaito previously approved these changes Jul 19, 2024
@0xJabberwock
Copy link
Member Author

TOB-WOND-4 explicitly mentions that the dispute's requestId validation issue could be found within BondEscalationResolutionModule, BondEscalationModule, PrivateERC20ResolutionModule and ERC20ResolutionModule. However, I was able to detect the lack of the same recommended check around many other modules. Should this be a concern?

It should not. This is due to every function lacking requestId checks being onlyOracle, contract where the appropriate validations are being performed.

Besides, other similar validations are also extendedly absent, such as comparing with the response's requestId or the dispute's responseId. Again, should this be a concern?

It should not be it outside of the warned modules, for the same reason; within the warned modules, there was one case where a responseId validation was due.

@0xJabberwock 0xJabberwock marked this pull request as draft July 22, 2024 19:18
@0xJabberwock 0xJabberwock marked this pull request as ready for review July 24, 2024 03:31
0xShaito
0xShaito previously approved these changes Jul 24, 2024
@0xJabberwock 0xJabberwock merged commit eff1822 into dev Jul 26, 2024
3 checks passed
@0xJabberwock 0xJabberwock deleted the fix/request-id-validation branch July 26, 2024 17:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants