Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Overflow in claimBribes() #102

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 12, 2024
Merged

Overflow in claimBribes() #102

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 12, 2024

Conversation

danielattilasimon
Copy link
Contributor

@danielattilasimon danielattilasimon commented Dec 11, 2024

Fixes #101.

@danielattilasimon danielattilasimon marked this pull request as ready for review December 11, 2024 07:06
Copy link
Contributor

@bingen bingen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.
I wonder how this would play out with PR #97, in particular governance.lqtyToVotes and setting everything back to uint256.
Anyway, it’s safer this way, so let’s merge it.

@danielattilasimon
Copy link
Contributor Author

danielattilasimon commented Dec 11, 2024

This will conflict with #97 for sure, as there will no longer be average timestamps. Not sure what the precision of votes in #97 is, but if it's reduced compared to what we have now, then it might be safe to multiply by them. Otherwise we need to come up with a new "trick".

@danielattilasimon danielattilasimon merged commit 87d79c2 into main Dec 12, 2024
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

IR-14: Overflow in claimBribes() leading to loss of funds
2 participants