Apply check-effect-interaction pattern to contract. #653
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It's generally good/safe behaviour to ensure that if a
requirecheck passes, that we immediately resolve the state effects before performing any interaction.This PR applies to two areas:
advanceWithdrawal: Prevents re-entrancy ontransferFrom. This isn't really an attack since ifcurrentOwneris set to a malicious contract that re-enters,msg.senderwill reference the contract and the attacker will cycle their funds. Nevertheless, we are modifying this to be safe.requestBlockPayment: I don't think this is easily re-entrant, but just modifying it for safety.