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

Add ERC7674 (draft) #5071

Merged
merged 23 commits into from
Jul 22, 2024
Merged

Add ERC7674 (draft) #5071

merged 23 commits into from
Jul 22, 2024

Conversation

Amxx
Copy link
Collaborator

@Amxx Amxx commented Jun 7, 2024

Fixes #4959

ERC-7674 is still WIP, but having it implemented as a draft contract would be valuable for users

Pending discussions:

  • if (value > 0) {...} in ERC20._spendAllowance vs if (value > 0) super._spendAllowance(...) in ERC20TemporaryApproval
    • remove _approve call when value is 0
    • skip super call if temporary allowance covers everything
  • emit event when temporary allowance is set/updated ?

PR Checklist

  • Tests
  • Documentation
  • Changeset entry (run npx changeset add)

@Amxx Amxx added this to the 5.1 milestone Jun 7, 2024
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Jun 7, 2024

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 887121c

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Name Type
openzeppelin-solidity Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

@Amxx Amxx requested review from ernestognw and cairoeth June 7, 2024 17:50
.changeset/serious-carrots-provide.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contracts/interfaces/draft-IERC7674.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 302 to 310
if (value > 0) {
uint256 currentAllowance = allowance(owner, spender);
if (currentAllowance != type(uint256).max) {
if (currentAllowance < value) {
revert ERC20InsufficientAllowance(spender, currentAllowance, value);
}
unchecked {
_approve(owner, spender, currentAllowance - value, false);
}
}
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Didn't we decide against address poisoning for similar reasons we would decide against filtering value == 0?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Amxx Amxx Jun 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

About address poisoning we decided to:

  • not revert if value is 0 (for many reason)
  • keep emitting the transfer event.

The changes here don't introduce a revert, and don't remove any event.

The logic here is the following:

  • if the temporary allowance is enough, we should not sload/sstore the persistent value (otherwize it break the point of gas savings). So we can do it in two ways:
    • in ERC20TemporaryApproval._spendAllowance only do the super call if value > 0
      • this is bad practice if someone else overrides _spendAllowance
    • in ERC20 change the semantics of _spendAllowance to mean "if there is nothing to spend, we are good anyway".

If we look at ERC20._spendAllowance, this has the following impact

  • if value = 0, currentAllowance cannot be smaller than value. ERC20InsufficientAllowance is never triggered, so the if doesn't change anything regarding the revert.
  • if value is 0, 5.0 code does:
    • load the allowance (from a potentially overridable function)
    • substract zero from it
    • set it as the new allowance, without emitting an event.

So there is a change, we are no longer calling _approve with the current value. It may be possible to create edge cases where the missed call to an overrident _approve has an effect. IMO its a non issue.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Amxx Amxx Jun 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

About address poisoning, it doesn't change the possibility of doing it (or not doing it). It makes it cheaper though, because the poisonning call would not read/write the zero allowance.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@frangio curious to having your opinion on this if in the core ERC20.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It may be possible to create edge cases where the missed call to an overrident _approve has an effect.

Hm, I have a vague memory that this actually was a concern for a project once... It does seem quite risky to change this in a minor version.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could we implement this by overriding only allowance and _approve instead of _spendAllowance?

I have no idea how. In particular I'm not sure how to make transferFrom spend only temporary allowance, without touching the normal allowance, when the temporary allowance is enough

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's possible, but not without the same problem of not invoking super._approve. There seems to be no way around that.

Copy link
Contributor

@frangio frangio Jun 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  • in ERC20TemporaryApproval._spendAllowance only do the super call if value > 0

    • this is bad practice if someone else overrides _spendAllowance

This is true, but it may be preferable than changing the behavior of ERC20 in a minor version. I think it's worth considering.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Amxx Amxx Jun 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Its what I used to do, before realizing there was a way to have the super call always happen.
I'm leanning toward the current version, but I'm open to re-using the old one

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Amxx Amxx Jun 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As discussed, I re-implemented the old one.

It negativelly affect the tests because the error emitted in some edge conditions depends on _approve being called (with spender = 0 and value = 0).
See 0490902

contracts/token/ERC20/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Amxx Amxx force-pushed the feature/erc-7674 branch 2 times, most recently from 80261e2 to 036ed54 Compare June 10, 2024 11:33
@Amxx Amxx changed the title Add ERC20TemporaryApproval Add ERC7674 Jun 10, 2024
@Amxx Amxx changed the title Add ERC7674 Add ERC7674 (draft) Jun 10, 2024
@Amxx Amxx force-pushed the feature/erc-7674 branch from bac03e6 to 0490902 Compare June 13, 2024 14:05
@Amxx Amxx requested review from frangio, ernestognw and cairoeth June 27, 2024 13:44
Copy link
Contributor

@cairoeth cairoeth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

implementation lgtm. codecov is failing, rebasing should fix.

.changeset/serious-carrots-provide.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contracts/interfaces/draft-IERC7674.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 10 to 11
* @dev Set the temporary allowance, allowing allows `spender` to withdraw (within the same transaction) assets
* held by the caller.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/5071/files#diff-7b0f1795668241cd100ce0a5728fc598e10533cf7bd2846a8b5c86b8a7ac6fa5R60-R71 is much clearer imo. for consistency (and to not duplicate), shouldn't we have these comments in the interface, and point to the interface in the implementation function comments? as in here https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/master/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20.sol#L118

contracts/interfaces/draft-IERC7674.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Amxx Amxx requested review from ernestognw and cairoeth July 19, 2024 06:40
Copy link
Contributor

@cairoeth cairoeth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm!

Copy link
Member

@ernestognw ernestognw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking good for a draft. Thanks all!

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.

Transient Approval
4 participants