improvement: check recipient address length #22
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve modifications to the Changes
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
🔇 Additional comments (2).changelog/unreleased/improvements/22-recipient-length-check.md (2)
The entry clearly describes the improvement and includes the necessary context about the IBC limit.
Since the PR is marked as WIP and currently failing e2e tests, it might be premature to add the changelog entry. Consider adding it once the implementation is complete and all tests are passing. Let's check the PR status: Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
keeper/query_server.go (1)
31-33: Consider using errors.Wrap for consistencyThe error handling could be more consistent with the codebase style. Consider using
errors.Wrapwith a custom error type, similar to how other errors are handled in this file.- return nil, fmt.Errorf("recipient address must not exceed %d bytes", transfertypes.MaximumReceiverLength) + return nil, errors.Wrapf(errorstypes.ErrInvalidRequest, "recipient address must not exceed %d bytes", transfertypes.MaximumReceiverLength)keeper/msg_server.go (1)
23-25: Consider adding minimum length validation.While maximum length validation is good, consider also adding a minimum length check to ensure recipient addresses are not empty or too short to be valid.
+ if len(msg.Recipient) == 0 { + return nil, errors.New("recipient address cannot be empty") + } if len(msg.Recipient) > transfertypes.MaximumReceiverLength { return nil, fmt.Errorf("recipient address must not exceed %d bytes", transfertypes.MaximumReceiverLength) }keeper/keeper.go (2)
142-145: Good addition of validation, but consider enhancing error detailsThe addition of
ValidateBasic()check is a good practice. However, the error logging could be more specific about which validation failed.Consider enhancing the error logging:
- k.Logger().Error("message validation failed", "channel", forward.Channel, "address", forward.GetAddress().String(), "amount", balance.String(), "err", err) + k.Logger().Error("transfer message validation failed", + "channel", forward.Channel, + "from", forward.GetAddress().String(), + "to", forward.Recipient, + "amount", balance.String(), + "err", err)
Line range hint
146-154: Consider implementing retry mechanism for failed forwardsThe TODO comment suggests implementing retries for failed forwards. This would improve reliability, especially for temporary failures.
Would you like me to help design and implement a retry mechanism using persistent storage? This could include:
- Retry count tracking
- Exponential backoff
- Maximum retry limit
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
keeper/keeper.go(2 hunks)keeper/msg_server.go(1 hunks)keeper/query_server.go(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
keeper/query_server.go (1)
31-33: Verify consistent usage of MaximumReceiverLength
Let's verify that the MaximumReceiverLength constant is used consistently across the codebase for recipient address validation.
✅ Verification successful
MaximumReceiverLength is consistently used for recipient validation
The verification shows that MaximumReceiverLength is used consistently in both query_server.go and msg_server.go for recipient address validation, with identical error messages. No other recipient length validations using different constants were found.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other usages of MaximumReceiverLength to ensure consistent validation
rg "MaximumReceiverLength" --type go
# Search for other recipient length validations that might use different constants
ast-grep --pattern 'if len($recipient) > $_'
Length of output: 513
keeper/msg_server.go (1)
23-25: LGTM! Verify impact on existing integrations.
The validation check is well-placed and uses the standard IBC transfer module's maximum length constant. This is a good security improvement to prevent potential buffer overflow attacks.
Let's verify the constant usage and potential impact:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response:
Length validation is consistently applied and uses IBC transfer module's standard limit
The validation check is correctly implemented and consistently used:
- The same
MaximumReceiverLengthfromtransfertypesis used in bothmsg_server.goandquery_server.go - The validation occurs early in request processing
- The constant comes from the IBC transfer module which ensures compatibility with IBC standards
- Error messages are clear and consistent
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any existing recipient addresses that might exceed the new limit
ast-grep --pattern 'msg.Recipient' | rg -A 2 'msg.Recipient'
# Check if the same validation is consistently applied across the codebase
ast-grep --pattern $'if len($x) > transfertypes.MaximumReceiverLength'
Length of output: 130
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find recipient-related validations and usages
# Search for any recipient-related code
rg -i "recipient" -A 3 -B 1
# Look for length-related validations
rg -i "len.*recipient|recipient.*len" -A 2
# Check for imports of transfertypes to understand usage
rg "transfertypes"
# Find all validation patterns in msg_server.go
rg "if.*err|return.*err" keeper/msg_server.go -A 1
Length of output: 68252
keeper/keeper.go (1)
Line range hint 132-141: LGTM: Message construction looks good
The MsgTransfer construction includes all required fields with appropriate values:
- Uses the transfer module's port ID
- Sets proper timeout using the header service
- Includes sender, receiver, and token information
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking great so far @twothirtyfive! Just leaving a quick suggestion 😄
Could you also add a CHANGELOG entry using unclog!
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes