bareli - wrong implementation of "getOptimizedUserInfo"

[sherlock-admin4]

bareli

medium

wrong implementation of "getOptimizedUserInfo"

Summary

different implementation of userInfos and userInfo.

Vulnerability Detail

As we can see here we are calculating userInfos as we are going through _users.length and poolInfo.length loops. we are calculating userInfos[i][j][k] as our i is _userlength ,j is poolinfo_length and k is (0,4). as we can see that userInfo[i][j] follow i is poolInfo.length and j is _userlength. we can see that there is difference between them ,this is not a wrong implementation but a confusion one.

function getOptimizedUserInfo(address[] memory _users) external view returns (uint256[4][][] memory userInfos) { userInfos = new uint256[4][]; uint256 len = poolInfo.length; for(uint256 i = 0; i < _users.length;) { address _user = _users[i]; userInfos[i] = new uint256[4]; for(uint256 pid = 0; pid < len;) { UserInfo memory uinfo = userInfo[pid][_user]; userInfos[i][pid][0] = uinfo.amount; userInfos[i][pid][1] = uinfo.boostAmount; userInfos[i][pid][2] = uinfo.depositAmount; userInfos[i][pid][3] = _pendingPoints(pid, _user); unchecked { ++pid; } } unchecked { i++; } } }

Impact

different implementation behaviour between userinfo and userinfos.

Code Snippet

https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2024-05-sophon/blob/main/farming-contracts/contracts/farm/SophonFarming.sol#L898

Tool used

Manual Review

Recommendation

function getOptimizedUserInfo(address[] memory _users) external view returns (uint256[4][][] memory userInfos) { userInfos = new uint256[4][]; uint256 len = _users.length; for(uint256 i = 0; i <poolInfo.length ;) {

        userInfos[i] = new uint256[4][](len);
        for(uint256 pid = 0; pid < len;) {
            UserInfo memory uinfo = userInfo[i][_users[pid];
            userInfos[i][pid][0] = uinfo.amount;
            userInfos[i][pid][1] = uinfo.boostAmount;
            userInfos[i][pid][2] = uinfo.depositAmount;
            userInfos[i][pid][3] = _pendingPoints(pid, _user);
            unchecked { ++pid; }
        }
        unchecked { i++; }
    }
}

[sherlock-admin3]

1 comment(s) were left on this issue during the judging contest.

0xmystery commented:

invalid because of insufficient proof