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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Incorrect revert reason in CallFacet::addCaller(...) #273

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 19, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Incorrect revert reason in CallFacet::addCaller(...) #273

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 19, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments)

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

Czar102

Vulnerability details

Impact

Incorrect revert reason in CallFacet::addCaller(...)#37 - there aren't "TOO_MANY_CALLERS", the number has only been reached. A user might think that a contract already has too many callers, which is not true.

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Consider replacing "TOO_MANY_CALLERS" with "CALLER_LIMIT_REACHED".
@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working labels Dec 19, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 19, 2021
@code423n4
Czar102 issue #273
757e769
@loki-sama loki-sama added sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) and removed sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue labels Dec 30, 2021
@0xleastwood
Copy link
Collaborator

This is not a security risk. Marking non-critical.

@0xleastwood 0xleastwood added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation and removed 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments labels Jan 23, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@loki-sama @0xleastwood @code423n4