Inefficient Input Validation in mint and burn Functions
Low/Info issue submitted by NoOne
Summary
The mint and burn functions in the contract are designed to handle the minting and burning of shares of a vault position. Both functions include checks for a zero address (receiver_ == address(0)), but these checks are performed after some initial computations and logic. This can lead to inefficiencies and potential security issues. The recommended approach is to move these checks to the beginning of the functions.
Vulnerability Detail
Both the mint and burn functions perform the check for a zero address(receiver_ == address(0)) after some initial computations and logic. This can result in wasted gas and unnecessary computations if the function is eventually going to revert due to an invalid receiver address. By moving these checks to the beginning of the functions, we can ensure that invalid input is detected immediately, following the fail-fast principle and improving both security and efficiency.
Impact
Increased Gas Costs: Performing computations and checks before validating the receiver address can result in unnecessary gas consumption if the transaction ultimately reverts due to an invalid address.
Potential Security Risks: While the current implementation does not seem to introduce a direct security vulnerability, delaying input validation can open up subtle bugs or vulnerabilities in more complex contracts.
To resolve this issue, move the check for the zero address (receiver_ == address(0)) to the beginning of both the mint and burnfunctions. This ensures that the functions fail fast and avoid unnecessary computations if the receiver address is invalid.
Inefficient Input Validation in
mintandburnFunctionsLow/Info issue submitted by NoOne
Summary
The
mintandburnfunctions in the contract are designed to handle the minting and burning of shares of a vault position. Both functions include checks for a zero address(receiver_ == address(0)), but these checks are performed after some initial computations and logic. This can lead to inefficiencies and potential security issues. The recommended approach is to move these checks to the beginning of the functions.Vulnerability Detail
Both the
mintandburnfunctions perform the check for a zero address(receiver_ == address(0))after some initial computations and logic. This can result in wasted gas and unnecessary computations if the function is eventually going to revert due to an invalid receiver address. By moving these checks to the beginning of the functions, we can ensure that invalid input is detected immediately, following the fail-fast principle and improving both security and efficiency.Impact
Increased Gas Costs: Performing computations and checks before validating the receiver address can result in unnecessary gas consumption if the transaction ultimately reverts due to an invalid address. Potential Security Risks: While the current implementation does not seem to introduce a direct security vulnerability, delaying input validation can open up subtle bugs or vulnerabilities in more complex contracts.
Code Snippet
https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2024-03-arrakis/blob/main/arrakis-modular/src/ArrakisMetaVaultPublic.sol#L91 https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2024-03-arrakis/blob/main/arrakis-modular/src/ArrakisMetaVaultPublic.sol#L62
Tool used
Manual Review
Recommendation
To resolve this issue, move the check for the zero address
(receiver_ == address(0))to the beginning of both themintandburnfunctions. This ensures that the functions fail fast and avoid unnecessary computations if the receiver address is invalid.