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 #17

Open
howlbot-integration bot opened this issue Nov 4, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

QA Report #17

howlbot-integration bot opened this issue Nov 4, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working grade-a Q-01 QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax selected for report This submission will be included/highlighted in the audit report sufficient quality report This report is of sufficient quality

Comments

@howlbot-integration
Copy link

howlbot-integration bot commented Nov 4, 2024

See the markdown file with the details of this report here.

@howlbot-integration howlbot-integration bot 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 sufficient quality report This report is of sufficient quality labels Nov 4, 2024
howlbot-integration bot added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 4, 2024
howlbot-integration bot added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 4, 2024
@af-afk
Copy link

af-afk commented Nov 7, 2024

[QA-01] Pool still remains disabled after initialization requiring 2-step setup process

We're happy with this behaviour currently. We think it makes sense in the context with how the initial price and costing could be abused.

[QA-02] Missing ownership check in grant_position function allows unauthorized position transfers

Could we have some extra context if this is an issue in its application? It's true that the function behaves like this, but it's privately used in the codebase, and it's our understanding that these callers enforce correct checks.

[QA-03] Zero-liquidity position creation allows for storage exhaustion attack

We recognise that this is potentially an issue, but we don't perceive it is likely to happen in practice. Even with a small amount, someone could create a position, supply some liquidity, remove it, and do all this in the same function, with the only cost a greater gas profile. A better architectural decision would be to move the position ID behaviour into a per pool basis, but we don't believe that in practice someone will grief this function to that extent.

[QA-04] Duplicate U256 type imports

We should change this. Thankfully for us this is the same implementation.

[QA-05] mul_mod overflow check only active in debug mode

We would appreciate some evidence under which circumstances this could cause an issue.

@alex-ppg
Copy link

While QA reports are not eligible for rewards on this contest, I believe this QA report is acceptable and thus merits an A rating.

@c4-judge
Copy link

alex-ppg marked the issue as grade-a

@thebrittfactor thebrittfactor added the selected for report This submission will be included/highlighted in the audit report label Nov 26, 2024
@thebrittfactor
Copy link

C4 Staff have added the selected for report label in order to assign report IDs, but will also include in the final report for completeness.

@C4-Staff C4-Staff added the Q-01 label Nov 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working grade-a Q-01 QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax selected for report This submission will be included/highlighted in the audit report sufficient quality report This report is of sufficient quality
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants