fix(protocol): verify target address is a contract address in DelegateOwner #17328
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
fix(protocol): verify target address is a contract address in DelegateOwner
🚨 Report Summary
For more details view the full report in OpenZeppelin Code Inspector |
Brechtpd
approved these changes
May 25, 2024
adaki2004
approved these changes
May 25, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fix bug report from OZ: L-16 Diff-Audit: ‘DelegateOwner’ Does Not Check for Contract Existence
The DelegateOwner contract is intended to be deployed on L2 and set as the owner of all the other L2 contracts. The DAO on L1 can then call it through the Bridge contract to execute arbitrary calls in its name. This could for example be used by the DAO to execute privileged functions on L2 from the L1. Calls from the DelegateOwner can be either low-level calls or delegate calls based on an input parameter.
However, low-level calls in Solidity do not check for contract existence. Such calls could thus be considered successful if the contract called has not been deployed yet, resulting in silent failures.
Consider adding a validation of the contract's existence if the given call.txdata is non-empty.