ConvexStakingWrapper.sol# Switching between 1, 2 instead of 0, 1 is more gas efficient

[code423n4]

Handle

WatchPug

Vulnerability details

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-01-yield/blob/e946f40239b33812e54fafc700eb2298df1a2579/contracts/ConvexStakingWrapper.sol#L54-L55

    bool private constant _NOT_ENTERED = false;
    bool private constant _ENTERED = true;

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-01-yield/blob/e946f40239b33812e54fafc700eb2298df1a2579/contracts/ConvexStakingWrapper.sol#L81-L90

    modifier nonReentrant() {
        // On the first call to nonReentrant, _notEntered will be true
        require(_status != _ENTERED, "ReentrancyGuard: reentrant call");
        // Any calls to nonReentrant after this point will fail
        _status = _ENTERED;
        _;
        // By storing the original value once again, a refund is triggered (see
        // https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2200)
        _status = _NOT_ENTERED;
    }

SSTORE from 0 to 1 (or any non-zero value), the cost is 20000;
SSTORE from 1 to 2 (or any other non-zero value), the cost is 5000.

By storing the original value once again, a refund is triggered (https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2200).

Since refunds are capped to a percentage of the total transaction's gas, it is best to keep them low, to increase the likelihood of the full refund coming into effect.

Therefore, switching between 1, 2 instead of 0, 1 will be more gas efficient.

See: https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/86bd4d73896afcb35a205456e361436701823c7a/contracts/security/ReentrancyGuard.sol#L29-L33

[GalloDaSballo]

The finding is valid, changing from non-zero to non-zero is indeed cheaper