fix(evm-precompile): use bank.MsgServer Send in precompile IFunToken.bankMsgSend #2160
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe pull request modifies the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
Finishing Touches
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
x/evm/precompile/funtoken.go (1)
717-726: LGTM! Consider adding pre-validations.The implementation correctly uses the bank.MsgServer pattern with proper validation. Consider adding these pre-validations before constructing the message:
- Validate amount is positive
- Validate denom format
// do the bank send +if amount == nil || amount.Sign() != 1 { + return nil, fmt.Errorf("amount must be positive") +} +if err := sdk.ValidateDenom(denom); err != nil { + return nil, fmt.Errorf("invalid denom: %w", err) +} coin := sdk.NewCoins(sdk.NewCoin(denom, math.NewIntFromBigInt(amount)))
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
x/evm/precompile/funtoken.go(2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: integration-tests
🔇 Additional comments (2)
x/evm/precompile/funtoken.go (2)
9-10: LGTM! Necessary imports added.The new imports are correctly added to support the bank.MsgServer implementation.
717-726: Verify denom validation across the codebase.Let's verify that the denom being used is properly validated across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Denom validation is properly implemented
The denom validation is handled securely through multiple layers:
- Bank module's ValidateBasic() validation
- SDK's standard coin construction methods
- Message validation before processing
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for denom validation patterns echo "Searching for denom validation patterns..." rg "ValidateDenom.*\(.*denom" -A 2 # Search for direct denom usage without validation echo "Searching for potential missing denom validations..." ast-grep --pattern 'sdk.NewCoin($denom, $_)'Length of output: 293
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for bank.MsgSend usage and validation echo "Searching for MsgSend usage..." rg "bank\.MsgSend" -A 5 # Search for coin creation patterns echo "Searching for coin creation patterns..." rg "NewCoin|NewCoins" -A 2 # Search for ValidateBasic usage echo "Searching for ValidateBasic calls..." rg "ValidateBasic\(\)" -A 2 # Search for custom validation methods echo "Searching for custom validation methods..." rg "func.*[Vv]alidate.*Denom" -A 5Length of output: 62534
| bankMsg := &bank.MsgSend{ | ||
| FromAddress: fromBech32.String(), | ||
| ToAddress: toBech32.String(), | ||
| Amount: coin, | ||
| } | ||
| if err := bankMsg.ValidateBasic(); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| if _, err := bankkeeper.NewMsgServerImpl(p.evmKeeper.Bank).Send( | ||
| sdk.WrapSDKContext(ctx), bankMsg, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This adds the block address check to IFunToken.bankMsgSend
Purpose / Abstract
The 3 methods where the above ticket might potentially play a role are
sendToBank,sendToEvmandbankMsgSend.sendToBankdoes not need any changes because it uses "SendCoinsFromModuleToAccount" to send Bank Coins, and this method correctly avoids sending funds to addresses blocked by the Bank module.sendToEvmdoes not need changes because the only bank.MsgSend operation involved is when the signer transfers funds to the EVM modulebankMsgSenddoes include a change becauseBaseSendKeeper.Senddoes not have the blocked address check, so I've switched that to usebank.MsgServer.Send, as it's safer and includes the blocking behavior.Summary by CodeRabbit
bankMsgSendmethod to usebank.MsgServer Send