Skip to content

Conversation

dglowinski
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

Copy link

immunefi-magnus bot commented Aug 7, 2025

🛡️ Immunefi PR Reviews

We’ve assigned 5 code reviewer(s) to this PR.

They’ll begin the review shortly and leave feedback directly in the pull request.

This review is based on the current state of your pull request. If you make changes after the review starts, they won’t be reflected here. To ensure the review includes your latest updates, you’ll need to open a new pull request.

Copy link

@immunefi-magnus immunefi-magnus bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The PR looks good to me.

if (msg.sender != vault) revert E_IRMUpdateUnauthorized();

The vault parameter is being taken from a user-provided argument, which effectively bypasses the intended access control check. We believe this check may be unnecessary in its current form.

  • Oxrudrapratap

@dglowinski
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The check for sender is just a convention we use in other IRMs, which signals that computeInterestRate is meant to be a potentially state mutating function called by the vaults, and reads should be directed at computeInterestRateView

@kasperpawlowski kasperpawlowski merged commit 31fe8eb into master Aug 25, 2025
@kasperpawlowski kasperpawlowski deleted the irm-cyclical-binary branch August 25, 2025 11:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants