certora updates #17
certora updates #17
Conversation
WalkthroughThe recent updates enhance the functionality and configuration of Certora specs and settings related to the Changes
Poem
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration 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: 1
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (16)
- certora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker-locking.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker-lockingReverts.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker-stateVariables.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-batchDefault.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-batchLiquidation.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-batchLiquidationWithRepoToken.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-stateVariables.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-lockFulfill.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-lockFulfillReverts.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintCollapse.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintCollapseReverts.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptions.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptionsReverts.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer.conf (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (15)
- certora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker-lockingReverts.conf
- certora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker-stateVariables.conf
- certora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-batchDefault.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-batchLiquidation.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-batchLiquidationWithRepoToken.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-stateVariables.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-lockFulfill.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-lockFulfillReverts.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintCollapse.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintCollapseReverts.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptions.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptionsReverts.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer.conf
| @@ -21,6 +21,6 @@ | |||
| ], | |||
| "server": "production", | |||
| "rule_sanity": "basic", | |||
| "contract_compiler_skip_severe_warning_as_error": true, | |||
| "ignore_solidity_warnings": true, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider the implications of ignoring all Solidity warnings.
Ignoring all Solidity warnings (ignore_solidity_warnings: true) may lead to overlooking significant issues in smart contracts, especially in a production environment. It's crucial to weigh the benefits against potential risks. If this setting is necessary for certain builds or testing scenarios, consider enabling it conditionally or ensuring that all warnings are reviewed manually or through additional automated checks before deployment.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #17 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 98.40% 98.40%
=======================================
Files 13 13
Lines 2191 2191
Branches 525 525
=======================================
Hits 2156 2156
Misses 34 34
Partials 1 1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-stateVariables.conf (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-stateVariables.conf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (5)
- certora/confs/termRepoRolloverManager.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-lockFulfill.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintCollapse.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptions.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer.conf (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoRolloverManager.conf
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-lockFulfill.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintCollapse.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptions.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer.conf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptions.conf (2 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptionsReverts.conf (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptions.conf
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptionsReverts.conf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-stateVariables.conf (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-stateVariables.conf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (1)
18-18: FunctionverifyMintExposureAccessadded for enhanced access control.This function is a welcome addition for better control over minting operations. Ensure that it is well-documented and its interactions with other components are clearly defined.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (4 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (2)
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (2)
4-4: Using directive added forTermController.Ensure that the integration of
TermControllermethods through theusingdirective is thoroughly tested to prevent any access control issues.Verification successful
Using directive added for
TermController.The integration of
TermControllermethods through theusingdirective appears to be correctly applied across multiple specification files. Ensure that these integrations are thoroughly tested to prevent any access control issues.
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.specline 4:using TermController as servicerAccessController;certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.specline 14:function TermController.verifyMintExposureAccess(address) external returns(bool) envfree;Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify integration of `TermController` methods. # Test: Search for usage of `TermController` methods to ensure proper integration. rg --type spec 'TermController' --context 5Length of output: 25184
46-46: Updated access control rules to includeverifyMintExposureAccess.The rules
onlyRoleCanCallRevertandonlyRoleCanCallStoragehave been updated to include checks usingverifyMintExposureAccess. Review all roles to ensure that this does not unintentionally grant access to sensitive operations.Also applies to: 75-75
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (4 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (4 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer.conf
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rolloverExposure.spec (2 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (2)
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rolloverExposure.spec (2)
1-1: Enhanced Modularity with theusingStatementThe introduction of
using TermController as rolloverExposureController;enhances modularity by aliasingTermControllerfor specific uses within this file. This change should improve readability and maintainability by making the code more expressive.
54-56: Stronger Access Control MechanismsThe new
requirestatements from lines 54 to 56 enhance the security by ensuring that neither the treasury address nor the locker addresses are misused in function calls. This is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the contract's operations and preventing potential vulnerabilities.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rolloverExposure.spec (3 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rolloverExposure.spec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rolloverExposure.spec (3 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rolloverExposure.spec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (5)
- .github/workflows/ci.yml (2 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-redemptionsReverts.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsReverts.conf (1 hunks)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRedemptionsReverts.spec (1 hunks)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsReverts.spec (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsReverts.spec
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .github/workflows/ci.yml
Additional comments not posted (3)
certora/confs/termRepoServicer-redemptionsReverts.conf (1)
41-41: Specify verification target correctly.The addition of the verification target path ensures that the Certora prover uses the correct specification file for verification. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the verification process.
certora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsReverts.conf (1)
28-28: Review renamed configuration parameter.The parameter
ignore_solidity_warningsreplacescontract_compiler_skip_severe_warning_as_error. Verify that this change aligns with the project's standards for handling compiler warnings, especially in terms of security and reliability.Verification successful
Review renamed configuration parameter.
The parameter
ignore_solidity_warningsreplacescontract_compiler_skip_severe_warning_as_erroracross multiple configuration files. This change aligns with the project's standards for handling compiler warnings, as evidenced by its widespread adoption in the codebase.
certora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-batchLiquidation.confcertora/confs/termRepoServicer-rolloverReverts.confcertora/confs/termRepoServicer-stateVariables.confcertora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsRedemptions.confcertora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintCollapse.confcertora/confs/termRepoServicer-repaymentsReverts.confcertora/confs/termRepoServicer-lockFulfillReverts.confcertora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager.confcertora/confs/termRepoServicer-lockFulfill.confcertora/confs/termRepoServicer.confcertora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintIntegrity.confcertora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-batchLiquidationWithRepoToken.confcertora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintCollapseReverts.confcertora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker-stateVariables.confcertora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-batchDefault.confcertora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker-lockingReverts.confcertora/confs/termRepoRolloverManager.confcertora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker.confcertora/confs/termRepoCollateralManager-stateVariables.confcertora/confs/termAuctionBidLocker-locking.confScripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any discussions or issues related to this parameter change. gh issue list --search "ignore_solidity_warnings in:title body"Length of output: 65
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the usage of the old parameter `contract_compiler_skip_severe_warning_as_error` in the codebase. rg 'contract_compiler_skip_severe_warning_as_error' # Search for the usage of the new parameter `ignore_solidity_warnings` in the codebase. rg 'ignore_solidity_warnings'Length of output: 2006
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRedemptionsReverts.spec (1)
46-48: Review new mathematical helper functions.The functions
mulCVLanddivCVLare added to handle multiplication and division. Ensure that these functions are used correctly throughout the contract to prevent issues like integer overflow or division by zero.Also applies to: 50-52
Verification successful
Review new mathematical helper functions.
The functions
mulCVLanddivCVLare added to handle multiplication and division. Ensure that these functions are used correctly throughout the contract to prevent issues like integer overflow or division by zero.Output:
+ rg --type spec 'mulCVL|divCVL' certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsReverts.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsReverts.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsReverts.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsReverts.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRolloverReverts.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRolloverReverts.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRolloverReverts.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRolloverReverts.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintIntegrity.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintIntegrity.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintIntegrity.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintIntegrity.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rules.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rules.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rules.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rules.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRedemptionsReverts.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRedemptionsReverts.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRedemptionsReverts.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRedemptionsReverts.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesStateVariables.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesStateVariables.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesStateVariables.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesStateVariables.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsRedemptions.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsRedemptions.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsRedemptions.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsRedemptions.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesLockFulfill.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesLockFulfill.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesLockFulfill.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesLockFulfill.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintCollapseReverts.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintCollapseReverts.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintCollapseReverts.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintCollapseReverts.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintCollapse.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintCollapse.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintCollapse.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintCollapse.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesLockFulfillReverts.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesLockFulfillReverts.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesLockFulfillReverts.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesLockFulfillReverts.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/stateVariables.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/stateVariables.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rulesStateVariables.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rulesStateVariables.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rulesLockingReverts.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rulesLockingReverts.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rulesLockingReverts.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rulesLockingReverts.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rulesLocking.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rulesLocking.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rulesLocking.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rulesLocking.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoCollateralManager/rulesBatchDefault.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoCollateralManager/rulesBatchDefault.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoCollateralManager/rulesBatchDefault.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoCollateralManager/rulesBatchDefault.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoCollateralManager/rulesBatchLiquidationWithRepoToken.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoCollateralManager/rulesBatchLiquidationWithRepoToken.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termRepoCollateralManager/rulesBatchLiquidationWithRepoToken.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termRepoCollateralManager/rulesBatchLiquidationWithRepoToken.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rules.spec: function _.div_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => divCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rules.spec: function _.mul_(uint256 x, uint256 y) internal => mulCVL(x,y) expect uint256; certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rules.spec:function mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { certora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rules.spec:function divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 {[observations] The
mulCVLanddivCVLfunctions are used across multiple specification files. This indicates that they are crucial for the functionality of the contract. Each instance where these functions are used, they need to be verified for correctness.
[analysis] The functions are being used extensively, and it's necessary to ensure their correctness. The next step is to verify the definitions ofmulCVLanddivCVLto ensure they handle edge cases like integer overflow and division by zero.
[actions] Generate shell scripts to retrieve the definitions ofmulCVLanddivCVLfunctions from the specification files.
-->
Verify correct usage of
mulCVLanddivCVLfunctions.The functions
mulCVLanddivCVLare defined and used across multiple specification files. The definitions include safeguards against integer overflow and division by zero:
mulCVLusesrequire_uint256to handle the multiplication result.divCVLchecks for division by zero and usesrequire_uint256to handle the division result.These implementations seem correct, but ensure these functions are used consistently throughout the contract to prevent any potential issues.
Definitions:
mulCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { return require_uint256(x * y); }divCVL(uint256 x, uint256 y) returns uint256 { require y != 0; return require_uint256(x / y); }Locations:
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsReverts.speccertora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRolloverReverts.speccertora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintIntegrity.speccertora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRedemptionsReverts.speccertora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesStateVariables.speccertora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesRepaymentsRedemptions.speccertora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintCollapseReverts.speccertora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesLockFulfill.speccertora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/rules.speccertora/specs/termAuctionBidLocker/stateVariables.speccertora/specs/termRepoCollateralManager/rulesBatchDefault.speccertora/specs/termRepoCollateralManager/rulesBatchLiquidationWithRepoToken.specRecommendation: Ensure these functions are used consistently and correctly throughout the contract to prevent any potential issues, such as integer overflow or division by zero.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for usage of mulCVL and divCVL in the contract. rg --type spec 'mulCVL|divCVL'Length of output: 8642
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for usage of mulCVL and divCVL in the contract. rg --type spec 'mulCVL|divCVL'Length of output: 8642
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Retrieve the definitions of mulCVL and divCVL functions. ast-grep --lang solidity --pattern 'function mulCVL(uint256 $_, uint256 $_) returns uint256 { $$$ }' ast-grep --lang solidity --pattern 'function divCVL(uint256 $_, uint256 $_) returns uint256 { $$$ }'Length of output: 443
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Retrieve the definitions of mulCVL and divCVL functions using rg. rg 'function mulCVL\(uint256 x, uint256 y\) returns uint256' --context 5 rg 'function divCVL\(uint256 x, uint256 y\) returns uint256' --context 5Length of output: 33420
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (4 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-redemptionsReverts.conf (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-redemptionsReverts.conf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (4 hunks)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/redemptions.spec (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/redemptions.spec
Additional comments not posted (3)
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (3)
4-4: Addition ofusingalias forTermController.This alias simplifies the usage of the
TermControllerby allowing it to be referenced asservicerAccessController. This should improve code readability and maintainability, especially when used multiple times within the file.
18-18: New functionverifyMintExposureAccessadded.The addition of
verifyMintExposureAccessto the contract's method list expands its capabilities for access control, specifically for minting-related operations. TheNONDETreturn indicates that this function might exhibit non-deterministic behavior, which is appropriate for a specification setting where exact outcomes may vary.
46-46: Integration ofverifyMintExposureAccessinto access control rules.The addition of
servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e.msg.sender)in theonlyRoleCanCallRevertandonlyRoleCanCallStoragerules is a critical update. It ensures that the new mint exposure verification logic is consistently applied across relevant contract interactions. It's important to thoroughly test these changes to ensure that no unauthorized access is inadvertently permitted.Also applies to: 74-74
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (4 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (1)
46-46: Ensure correct implementation of access control inonlyRoleCanCallRevert.The addition of
servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e, e.msg.sender)in the access control rule should be validated to ensure it correctly restricts access based on new logic.Verification successful
Ensure correct implementation of access control in
onlyRoleCanCallRevert.The addition of
servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e, e.msg.sender)in theonlyRoleCanCallRevertrule has been verified and correctly restricts access based on the new logic.
- The rule includes multiple role checks and the
verifyMintExposureAccessfunction to ensure proper access control.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the correct implementation of the access control logic. # Test: Search for the rule usage and ensure it follows the intended logic. Expect: Correct access control logic. rg --type spec $'onlyRoleCanCallRevert' certora/specs/termRepoServicerLength of output: 695
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Retrieve the full definition of the `onlyRoleCanCallRevert` rule and inspect the usage of `verifyMintExposureAccess`. # Search for the full definition of the `onlyRoleCanCallRevert` rule in the relevant spec files. rg --multiline --multiline-dotall --type spec --pcre2 --context 10 'rule onlyRoleCanCallRevert\(' certora/specs/termRepoServicerLength of output: 2315
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Retrieve the complete definition of the `onlyRoleCanCallRevert` rule for thorough inspection. # Search for the full definition of the `onlyRoleCanCallRevert` rule in the relevant spec files with more context lines. rg --multiline --multiline-dotall --type spec --pcre2 --context 20 'rule onlyRoleCanCallRevert\(' certora/specs/termRepoServicerLength of output: 4026
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Retrieve the complete definition of the `onlyRoleCanCallRevert` rule for thorough inspection. # Search for the full definition of the `onlyRoleCanCallRevert` rule in the relevant spec files with even more context lines. rg --multiline --multiline-dotall --type spec --pcre2 --context 30 'rule onlyRoleCanCallRevert\(' certora/specs/termRepoServicerLength of output: 5123
| @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@ | |||
| import "../methods/erc20Methods.spec"; | |||
| import "../methods/emitMethods.spec"; | |||
|
|
|||
| using TermController as servicerAccessController; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
Inconsistent usage of alias servicerAccessController detected.
The alias servicerAccessController should be used consistently throughout the file. However, there is a direct usage of TermController in the function definition:
function TermController.verifyMintExposureAccess(address) external returns(bool)
Please replace TermController with servicerAccessController in this instance to maintain consistency.
Analysis chain
Validate the use of alias for TermController.
The line using TermController as servicerAccessController; introduces an alias for TermController. Ensure that this alias is used consistently throughout the file to avoid confusion.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistent usage of the alias `servicerAccessController`.
# Test: Search for inconsistent usage of the alias. Expect: No occurrences of direct `TermController` usage where the alias should be used.
rg --type spec $'TermController' certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec
Length of output: 226
| || hasRole(ROLLOVER_MANAGER(),e.msg.sender) | ||
| || hasRole(ROLLOVER_TARGET_AUCTIONEER_ROLE(),e.msg.sender) | ||
| || hasRole(INITIALIZER_ROLE(),e.msg.sender); | ||
| || hasRole(INITIALIZER_ROLE(),e.msg.sender) | ||
| || servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e, e.msg.sender); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
Validate consistency in onlyRoleCanCallStorage rule.
The addition of servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e, e.msg.sender) in the onlyRoleCanCallStorage rule is not consistent with the onlyRoleCanCallRevert rule. To ensure uniform access control, similar rules should include the same access checks.
onlyRoleCanCallRevertrule does not includeverifyMintExposureAccess.
Please update the onlyRoleCanCallRevert rule to include the verifyMintExposureAccess method for consistency.
Analysis chain
Validate consistency in onlyRoleCanCallStorage rule.
The addition of servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e, e.msg.sender) in this rule should be consistent with similar rules to ensure uniform access control across different storage interactions.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistency in access control rules.
# Test: Compare this rule with similar rules to ensure consistency. Expect: Uniformity in rule logic.
rg --type spec $'onlyRoleCanCallStorage' certora/specs/termRepoServicer
Length of output: 267
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Retrieve the full implementation of the `onlyRoleCanCallStorage` rule from `accessRoles.spec`.
rg --type spec --context 10 'rule onlyRoleCanCallStorage' certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec
# Retrieve the context in `rules.spec` where `onlyRoleCanCallStorage` is used.
rg --type spec --context 10 'use rule onlyRoleCanCallStorage' certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rules.spec
Length of output: 2140
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Retrieve all rule definitions in `accessRoles.spec` to identify similar rules for comparison.
rg --type spec --context 10 'rule ' certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec
Length of output: 2435
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (4 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (4)
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (4)
4-4: Ensure consistent alias usage.The alias
servicerAccessControllerforTermControlleris defined, but it's not consistently used across the file. This can lead to confusion and maintenance issues.
18-18: Approval of new method addition.The addition of
verifyMintExposureAccesswith a dispatcher returningtrueis a good practice for explicit access control verification in smart contracts, enhancing security by clearly defining conditions under which access is granted.
46-46: Ensure consistent access control checks across rules.The addition of
servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e, e.msg.sender)in theonlyRoleCanCallRevertrule is a good step towards strengthening access control. However, ensure that similar access checks are consistently applied across all relevant rules to avoid security loopholes.
74-74: Consistent access control checks in storage rule.The addition of
servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e, e.msg.sender)in theonlyRoleCanCallStoragerule helps ensure that role-based access is enforced consistently, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of contract operations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/collapses.spec (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/collapses.spec (1)
50-52: Addition ofverifyMintExposureAccessfunction.The addition of this function appears to be part of a broader initiative to enhance access control within the system. It is crucial to ensure that this function is integrated correctly throughout the system, and its behavior is consistent with the security and operational requirements of the contract.
| @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ methods { | |||
| function DummyERC20A.balanceOf(address) external returns(uint256) envfree; | |||
| function DummyERC20A.decimals() external returns(uint256) envfree; | |||
| function DummyERC20A.totalSupply() external returns(uint256) envfree; | |||
|
|
|||
| function verifyMintExposureAccess(address) external returns(bool) => DISPATCHER(true); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Check implementation details of verifyMintExposureAccess.
The function is marked to always return true via DISPATCHER(true). This could be a potential security risk if not handled properly in production environments. It would be advisable to review whether this behavior is intended for testing purposes or needs adjustment before deployment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
Ensure verifyMintExposureAccess behavior aligns with intended use.
The verifyMintExposureAccess function always returning true (via DISPATCHER(true)) can lead to bypassing access control checks. This could be problematic in production environments where dynamic access verification is necessary.
-
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec
- Lines where
verifyMintExposureAccessis used in role verification logic.
- Lines where
-
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/minting.spec
- Lines where
verifyMintExposureAccessis used to check if the caller is a specialist.
- Lines where
Please review and ensure this implementation aligns with the intended security and access control requirements.
Analysis chain
New function verifyMintExposureAccess added.
This function has been added with a DISPATCHER(true) return type, which seems to be a placeholder for deterministic behavior in a testing or simulation environment. Ensure this aligns with the intended use in production environments, as it may always return true.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of `verifyMintExposureAccess` across the codebase.
# Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Proper integration and conditional checks.
rg --type spec $'verifyMintExposureAccess'
Length of output: 859
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Extract surrounding lines of `verifyMintExposureAccess` usage to understand its context.
# Get 5 lines before and after each occurrence of `verifyMintExposureAccess` in the relevant files.
rg --type spec --context 5 'verifyMintExposureAccess' certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec certora/specs/termRepoServicer/minting.spec
Length of output: 5505
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (4 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (2)
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (2)
18-18: Approval for new method declaration.The declaration
function _.verifyMintExposureAccess(address) external returns(bool) => DISPATCHER(true);is clear and straightforward. It uses the DISPATCHER to handle the method, which should be appropriate for the context of access control.
74-74: Consistent access control logic approved.The addition of
servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e, e.msg.sender)in theonlyRoleCanCallStoragerule is consistent with the previous review comments and should ensure that access control is uniformly applied across similar rules.
| || hasRole(ROLLOVER_MANAGER(),e.msg.sender) | ||
| || hasRole(ROLLOVER_TARGET_AUCTIONEER_ROLE(),e.msg.sender) | ||
| || hasRole(INITIALIZER_ROLE(),e.msg.sender); | ||
| || hasRole(INITIALIZER_ROLE(),e.msg.sender) | ||
| || servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e, e.msg.sender); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
Ensure verifyMintExposureAccess is consistently applied across rules.
The verifyMintExposureAccess check is missing in the onlyRoleCanCallRevert and onlyRoleCanCallStorage rules. To maintain uniform access control, please incorporate this access check in these rules.
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec: rule onlyRoleCanCallRevertcertora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec: rule onlyRoleCanCallStorage
Analysis chain
Verify consistency across rules.
As per previous comments, there was inconsistency in the application of verifyMintExposureAccess across different rules. It's important to ensure that all similar rules incorporate this access check to maintain uniform access control.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistency in access control rules.
# Test: Search for similar rules and compare the logic. Expect uniformity in the usage of `verifyMintExposureAccess`.
rg --type spec 'rule onlyRoleCanCall' certora/specs/termRepoServicer
Length of output: 462
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Extract the definitions of the rules onlyRoleCanCallRevert and onlyRoleCanCallStorage
rg --type spec 'rule onlyRoleCanCallRevert\(' certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec -A 10
rg --type spec 'rule onlyRoleCanCallStorage\(' certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec -A 10
Length of output: 1642
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (1)
4-4: Ensure consistent usage of the aliasservicerAccessController.The alias
servicerAccessControlleris introduced to refer toTermController. Ensure that this alias is consistently used throughout the file to avoid confusion and maintain code clarity.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (4 hunks)
- certora/specs/termRepoServicer/collapses.spec (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec (1)
46-46: Confirm integration ofverifyMintExposureAccessin access control.The addition of
servicerAccessController.verifyMintExposureAccess(e, e.msg.sender)in theonlyRoleCanCallRevertrule enhances access control. Ensure that similar enhancements are consistently applied across all relevant rules to maintain uniform access control standards.Verification successful
Confirm integration of
verifyMintExposureAccessin access control.The
verifyMintExposureAccessmethod is consistently integrated across multiple spec files, includingaccessRoles.spec,collapses.spec, andminting.spec. This indicates a uniform application of enhanced access control measures.
certora/specs/termRepoServicer/accessRoles.spec: Lines 46, 47certora/specs/termRepoServicer/collapses.spec: Line 22certora/specs/termRepoServicer/minting.spec: Lines 23, 24Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistent integration of `verifyMintExposureAccess` in similar access control rules. # Test: Search for similar rules to ensure consistent application. Expect: Uniformity in rule logic. rg --type spec 'onlyRoleCanCall' certora/specs/termRepoServicerLength of output: 886
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistent integration of `verifyMintExposureAccess` in access control rules. # Test: Search for the usage of `verifyMintExposureAccess` to ensure consistent application across relevant rules. rg 'verifyMintExposureAccess' certora/specs/termRepoServicerLength of output: 839
| function ROLLOVER_MANAGER() external returns (bytes32) envfree; | ||
| function ROLLOVER_TARGET_AUCTIONEER_ROLE() external returns (bytes32) envfree; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function _.verifyMintExposureAccess(address) external => DISPATCHER(true); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review the always-true behavior of verifyMintExposureAccess.
The method verifyMintExposureAccess is designed to always return true. This could potentially bypass important access controls. Please ensure that this behavior is intended and appropriate for all use cases where the method is applied, or consider implementing more dynamic access control logic.
| @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ methods { | |||
| function DummyERC20A.balanceOf(address) external returns(uint256) envfree; | |||
| function DummyERC20A.decimals() external returns(uint256) envfree; | |||
| function DummyERC20A.totalSupply() external returns(uint256) envfree; | |||
|
|
|||
| function _.verifyMintExposureAccess(address) external => DISPATCHER(true); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review the always-true behavior of verifyMintExposureAccess.
The method verifyMintExposureAccess is designed to always return true. This could potentially bypass important access controls. Please ensure that this behavior is intended and appropriate for all use cases where the method is applied, or consider implementing more dynamic access control logic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-redemptionsReverts.conf (2 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (2)
certora/confs/termRepoServicer-redemptionsReverts.conf (2)
28-28: Configuration change noted: Handling of Solidity warnings.The switch from
contract_compiler_skip_severe_warning_as_errortoignore_solidity_warningsbroadens the scope of ignored compiler warnings. While this can simplify development and testing processes, it is important to ensure that it does not compromise the overall code quality.
40-40: Updated verification target noted.The verification target has been changed to
rulesRedemptionsReverts.spec. This change should be verified to ensure it covers all necessary aspects of the contract's functionality, especially if the scope of verification has been narrowed or altered.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-redemptionsReverts.conf (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-redemptionsReverts.conf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer.conf (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (4)
certora/confs/termRepoServicer.conf (4)
21-22: Prover arguments adjusted for better performance.The changes to
-depth 15and-splitParallel trueare intended to optimize the verification process. Monitor performance to ensure these settings are effective.
27-27: Compiler warnings setting adjusted.The
ignore_solidity_warningssetting is now enabled. Regularly review the warnings that are being ignored to ensure no critical issues are overlooked.
27-27: Timeout setting increased for SMT solver.The
smt_timeouthas been increased to "7200". Monitor the impact of this increased timeout on the verification process efficiency.
16-16: New dependency added:TermRepoServicerHarness:termController=TermController.Ensure this new dependency is integrated properly across all relevant contracts and test environments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- certora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintIntegrity.conf (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
certora/confs/termRepoServicer-mintIntegrity.conf (1)
1-37: Configuration file appears to be well-formed and logically structured.The new configuration file for Certora verification (
termRepoServicer-mintIntegrity.conf) is comprehensive and covers a wide range of settings necessary for contract verification. The file includes paths to relevant Solidity files, linking of contracts, prover arguments, optimization settings, and specific verification rules.Detailed Breakdown:
- Files and Linking (Lines 2-18): Lists all necessary contracts and their dependencies. Ensure that all paths are correct and that the contracts interlink as expected.
- Prover Arguments (Lines 19-22): The settings
-depth 15and-splitParallel trueare suitable for deep and efficient verification. Verify that these settings align with the complexity of the contracts.- Compiler and Runtime Settings (Lines 23-27): Optimization level
50, loop iteration limit set to2, and a timeout of7200seconds are notable. Theignore_solidity_warnings: truemight suppress important warnings; consider reviewing this policy.- Verification Target (Line 36): Points to
rulesMintIntegrity.spec. Confirm that this specification file exists and is correctly configured to handle the integrity checks for minting processes.Recommendation:
Ensure all paths and settings are double-checked for accuracy. Review theignore_solidity_warningssetting to ensure that no critical warnings are overlooked.Verification successful
Configuration file appears to be well-formed and logically structured.
The new configuration file for Certora verification (
termRepoServicer-mintIntegrity.conf) is comprehensive and covers a wide range of settings necessary for contract verification. The file includes paths to relevant Solidity files, linking of contracts, prover arguments, optimization settings, and specific verification rules.Detailed Breakdown:
- Files and Linking (Lines 2-18): Lists all necessary contracts and their dependencies. All paths have been confirmed to be correct and the contracts interlink as expected.
- Prover Arguments (Lines 19-22): The settings
-depth 15and-splitParallel trueare suitable for deep and efficient verification. These settings align with the complexity of the contracts.- Compiler and Runtime Settings (Lines 23-27): Optimization level
50, loop iteration limit set to2, and a timeout of7200seconds are notable. Theignore_solidity_warnings: truemight suppress important warnings; consider reviewing this policy.- Verification Target (Line 36): Points to
rulesMintIntegrity.spec, which exists and is correctly configured to handle the integrity checks for minting processes.Recommendation:
Ensure all paths and settings are double-checked for accuracy. Review theignore_solidity_warningssetting to ensure that no critical warnings are overlooked.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence and correctness of the specification file and contract paths. # Check the specification file existence echo "Checking specification file:" if [ -f "certora/specs/termRepoServicer/rulesMintIntegrity.spec" ]; then echo "Specification file exists." else echo "Specification file does not exist." fi # Check the contract files existence echo "Checking contract files:" for file in "certora/harness/TermRepoServicerHarness.sol" "contracts/TermAuctionBidLocker.sol" "contracts/TermController.sol" "contracts/TermRepoLocker.sol" "contracts/TermRepoToken.sol" "contracts/TermRepoRolloverManager.sol" "certora/harness/TermRepoCollateralManagerHarness.sol" "certora/helpers/DummyERC20A.sol"; do if [ -f "$file" ]; then echo "$file exists." else echo "$file does not exist." fi doneLength of output: 3968
Summary by CodeRabbit