The previous implementation included a mintWithPermit method that was supposed to allow users to mint a certain number of shares through a permit signature. However the signature would have to be signed with a specific value of _assets that isn’t known in advance (since it varies based on the exchange rate) and therefore it is probable that most/all calls to mintWithPermit would revert.
Mitigation
The implementation has been removed altogether which makes sense because it is impossible to know what value of _assets to sign a message for that will be valid at any given time in the future. depositWithPermit remains to allow entering into a vault with a permit, so this issue has been resolved.
Lines of code
Vulnerability details
Comments
The previous implementation included a
mintWithPermit
method that was supposed to allow users to mint a certain number of shares through a permit signature. However the signature would have to be signed with a specific value of_assets
that isn’t known in advance (since it varies based on the exchange rate) and therefore it is probable that most/all calls tomintWithPermit
would revert.Mitigation
The implementation has been removed altogether which makes sense because it is impossible to know what value of
_assets
to sign a message for that will be valid at any given time in the future.depositWithPermit
remains to allow entering into a vault with a permit, so this issue has been resolved.Conclusion
LGTM