Inside TokenManager contract call to CapitallPool::approve()
use TokenManager address instead of intended token address which would fail.
The approve function in the CapitalPool contract is intended to allow the TokenManager to manage tokens by setting an allowance. However, inside TokenManager instead of token address approve function use address of TokenManager. Since TokenManager doesn't have approve function low level call inside CapitalPool will fail.
The incorrect approval logic would always fail since TokenManager doesn't have approve function. and since approval not assigned correctly user cant withdraw their tokens.
Manual
Use token address for approve call.
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.
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
This is your time to appeal against judgements on your submissions.
Appeals are being carefully reviewed by our judges.