Tadle
Tadle
DeFi
30,000 USDC
View results
Previous Next
Submission Details
Severity: high
Valid

`TokenManager._transfer()` passes the wrong parameter to `CapitalPool.approve()` leading to a guaranteed revert

juan

Summary

Vulnerability Details

In the following line of code:

ICapitalPool(_capitalPoolAddr).approve(address(this));

The address of the TokenManager is passed in to CapitalPool.approve().

However, CapitalPool.approve() is expecting a tokenAddr as the parameter, rather than the TokenManager.

function approve(address tokenAddr) external {
address tokenManager = tadleFactory.relatedContracts(
RelatedContractLibraries.TOKEN_MANAGER
);
(bool success, ) = tokenAddr.call(
abi.encodeWithSelector(
APPROVE_SELECTOR,
tokenManager,
type(uint256).max
)
);
​
if (!success) {
revert ApproveFailed();
}
}

Then the CapitalPool makes an external call to the approve() function on the provided address. Since the provided address is the TokenManager rather than an ERC20 token, the call reverts.

Impact

Calling TokenManager.withdraw() will revert due to the above mistake

Tools Used

Recommendations

- ICapitalPool(_capitalPoolAddr).approve(address(this));
+ ICapitalPool(_capitalPoolAddr).approve(_token);
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

0xnevi Lead Judge 10 months ago
Submission Judgement Published
Validated
Assigned finding tags:

finding-TokenManager-approve-wrong-address-input

If we consider the correct permissioned implementation for the `approve()` function within `CapitalPool.sol`, this would be a critical severity issue, because the withdrawal of funds will be permanently blocked and must be rescued by the admin via the `Rescuable.sol` contract, given it will always revert [here](https://github.com/Cyfrin/2024-08-tadle/blob/04fd8634701697184a3f3a5558b41c109866e5f8/src/core/CapitalPool.sol#L36-L38) when attempting to call a non-existent function selector `approve` within the TokenManager contract. The argument up in the air is since the approval function `approve` was made permisionless, the `if` block within the internal `_transfer()` function will never be invoked if somebody beforehand calls approval for the TokenManager for the required token, so the transfer will infact not revert when a withdrawal is invoked. I will leave open for escalation discussions, but based on my first point, I believe high severity is appropriate.

Support

FAQs

Can't find an answer? Chat with us on Discord, Twitter or Linkedin.