A call to runNextAction()
from _withdraw
will revert.
Initial call to runNextAction() (with nonReentrant modifier)
Inside runNextAction() , when _nextAction.selector == NextActionSelector.WITHDRAW_ACTION
Calls _withdraw()
Inside _withdraw() , when _isLongOneLeverage(beenLong) is true
When curPositionKey != bytes32(0)
NextActionSelector
set in WITHDRAW_ACTION
--> then called runNextAction()
in it the body of the condition else if (_nextAction.selector == NextActionSelector.WITHDRAW_ACTION)
, --> where it's called _withdraw()
--> this function has a condition else if (_isLongOneLeverage(beenLong))
in which NextActionSelector
is set toSWAP_ACTION
. It turns out that runNextAction()
will be called again from _withdraw()
However, in runNextAction()
there is a nonReentrant
modifier that prevents the function from being called again.
The challenge conceived by the design of the protocol will be returned by failure.
Manual
change the logic
Please read the CodeHawks documentation to know which submissions are valid. If you disagree, provide a coded PoC and explain the real likelihood and the detailed impact on the mainnet without any supposition (if, it could, etc) to prove your point.
There is no real proof, concrete root cause, specific impact, or enough details in those submissions. Examples include: "It could happen" without specifying when, "If this impossible case happens," "Unexpected behavior," etc. Make a Proof of Concept (PoC) using external functions and realistic parameters. Do not test only the internal function where you think you found something.
Please read the CodeHawks documentation to know which submissions are valid. If you disagree, provide a coded PoC and explain the real likelihood and the detailed impact on the mainnet without any supposition (if, it could, etc) to prove your point.
There is no real proof, concrete root cause, specific impact, or enough details in those submissions. Examples include: "It could happen" without specifying when, "If this impossible case happens," "Unexpected behavior," etc. Make a Proof of Concept (PoC) using external functions and realistic parameters. Do not test only the internal function where you think you found something.
Please read the CodeHawks documentation to know which submissions are valid. If you disagree, provide a coded PoC and explain the real likelihood and the detailed impact on the mainnet without any supposition (if, it could, etc) to prove your point.
There is no real proof, concrete root cause, specific impact, or enough details in those submissions. Examples include: "It could happen" without specifying when, "If this impossible case happens," "Unexpected behavior," etc. Make a Proof of Concept (PoC) using external functions and realistic parameters. Do not test only the internal function where you think you found something.
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.