Fraxlend (Frax Finance) contest - d3e4's results

The overflow check in FraxlendPairCore.sol#L471-L474 is pointless as the possibility of it happening defeats the capacity of the vault to store value, and were it to happen the contract is already effectively broken. It must be expected to be sufficient, or uint256 could be used, which was designed to be plenty sufficient. If _interestEarned overflows it is certainly valuable enough to be recorded, but this check, if overflow happens, effectively steals funds from the lenders.

_deposit() in FraxlendPairCore.sol#L559-L576 accepts arbitrary values of _amount and _shares, which opens the door to incorrect accounting. This has been done to allow for either to be specified and thence derive the other in deposit() (L583-L595) and mint() (L602-L614). A neater and safer solution might be to merge _deposit() and deposit() to take as a parameter only _amount and therein calculate _shares, and let mint() translate its _shares into _amount and with this call this new deposit(). The old solution always does one translation. This new one does one, or two (with mint() then _shares would be translated into _amount and then back again), but the upside is that we can reduce three functions to two and save some lines of code. https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L559-L576 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L583-L595 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L602-L614

We have an equivalent situation with _redeem(), redeem() and withdraw() https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L623-L653 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L660-L669 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L676-L685

and a similar situation with _repayAsset(), repayAsset(), liquidate(), liquidateClean(), repayAssetWithCollateral(), where only repayAssetWithCollateral() converts _shares to _amountToRepay. https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L855-L875 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L882-L887 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L911-L942 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L950-L1032 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L1157-L1212

block.timestamp is used to identify block. The stated intention is to do only once per block, so block.number should be used instead. In this case using the timestamp works, but is generally a dangerous practice. Instances: https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L420 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L518

Hardcoded value. Instances: https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPair.sol#L85 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPair.sol#L105 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L468 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L522 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairHelper.sol#L131 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairHelper.sol#L212 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/VariableInterestRate.sol#L69 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/VariableInterestRate.sol#L76

In getNewRate() (LinearInterestRate.sol#L76-L92) requireValidInitData() is called which does an abi.decode() with the same data that done again in L79. The content of requireValidData() (LinearInterestRate.sol#L52-L69) could be moved directly into getNewRate() to avoid this. requireValidInitData() is only called otherwise in FraxlendPairCore.sol#L275 once during initialization, but this functionality can be mimicked by calling getNewRate() with dummy values to see that it works, which really is truer to the intention. On the other hand, is it really necessary to validate the _rateInitCallData at every call of getNewRate()? Is it not enough to validate the _rateInitCallData only at initialisation, as it never changes? Then requireValidInitData() can remain as it is, and instead the call to it in getNewRate() be omitted. https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/LinearInterestRate.sol#L76-L92 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/LinearInterestRate.sol#L52-L69 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L275

Preincrementing may be cheaper than postincrementing, e.g. replace i++ with ++i. Instances: https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPair.sol#L289 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPair.sol#L308 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairDeployer.sol#L130 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairDeployer.sol#L158 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairDeployer.sol#L408 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendWhitelist.sol#L51 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendWhitelist.sol#L66 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendWhitelist.sol#L81 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/libraries/SafeERC20.sol#L24 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/libraries/SafeERC20.sol#L27 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/libraries/UniswapV2Library.sol#L98 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/libraries/VaultAccount.sol#L26 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/libraries/VaultAccount.sol#L43

Precompute .length in loop. Instances: https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPair.sol#L289 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPair.sol#L308 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L265 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L270 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendWhitelist.sol#L51 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendWhitelist.sol#L66 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendWhitelist.sol#L81

Move increment in loop to unchecked-block at end (i.e. for (uint i; i < <cond>; ) { … unchecked{ ++i } }). Instances: https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPair.sol#L289 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPair.sol#L308 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L265 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendPairCore.sol#L270 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendWhitelist.sol#L51 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendWhitelist.sol#L66 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/FraxlendWhitelist.sol#L81 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/libraries/SafeERC20.sol#L24 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-frax/blob/c4189a3a98b38c8c962c5ea72f1a322fbc2ae45f/src/contracts/libraries/SafeERC20.sol#L27

In fact, the entire code should be able to be unchecked.