Relax is_protected heuristic #855
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR makes
onlyOwnerto be considered as a safe modifier.While I think we should avoid hardcoding behaviors based on function/modifier name, I have tried a couple of different heuristics to improve
is_protected, based on #401 ideas, but in the end none is as effective as just using the modifier name.If
onlyOwneris incorrectly implemented, this PR will make Slither incorrectly assume that the function is protected.Overall I think this is a tradeoff that we can follow: we have a couple of detectors that can catch incorrect
onlyOwner, and if someone tries to add a backdoor, he will have other ways to fool Slither anyway.The benefits of using this approach (removing multiple FPs) outweigh the downsides I think.
Fix #401