Possible precision loss in _checkpositionsRange function
Summary
The _checkpositionsRange function contains a potential precision loss issue. The problem arises from the expression ((_range / 2) % _tickSpacing != 0).
Vulnerability Detail
The vulnerability lies in the calculation of (_range / 2) % _tickSpacing. The code assumes that _range and _tickSpacing are both int24 variables, representing signed 24-bit integers. However, when _range is 9 and _tickSpacing is, for example, 3, the division operation (_range / 2) will truncate the fractional part, resulting in 4 instead of 4.5. Subsequently, the modulo operation (4 % _tickSpacing) will evaluate to 1. This can lead to incorrect comparisons and unexpected behavior.
Impact
It can potentially lead to incorrect validation and can also affect the correctness of the positions range check, potentially allowing invalid positions to be considered valid
ash
high
Possible precision loss in _checkpositionsRange function
Summary
The
_checkpositionsRangefunction contains a potential precision loss issue. The problem arises from the expression ((_range / 2) % _tickSpacing != 0).Vulnerability Detail
The vulnerability lies in the calculation of
(_range / 2) % _tickSpacing. The code assumes that _range and _tickSpacing are both int24 variables, representing signed 24-bit integers. However, when_rangeis 9 and_tickSpacingis, for example, 3, the division operation (_range / 2) will truncate the fractional part, resulting in 4 instead of 4.5. Subsequently, the modulo operation (4 % _tickSpacing) will evaluate to 1. This can lead to incorrect comparisons and unexpected behavior.Impact
It can potentially lead to incorrect validation and can also affect the correctness of the positions range check, potentially allowing invalid positions to be considered valid
Code Snippet
https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-06-real-wagmi/blob/82a234a5c2c1fc1921c63265a9349b71d84675c4/concentrator/contracts/MultiStrategy.sol#L93-L104
Tool used
Manual Review
Recommendation
Duplicate of #82