I wanted some advice for the following contract function giving a possible overflow. Assert or require input spit back "ParserError: Expected ',' but got identifier assert (uint i = 0; i < _index 1; i ) {"
I am leaning towards the require implementation, giving the safe math library is already imported at the beginning of the contract. I have seen many different contracts with the same implementation but have some issues determining the correct approach. thanks so much for any help.
The arithmetic operation can overflow.
It is possible to cause an arithmetic overflow. Prevent the overflow by constraining inputs using the required () statement or the OpenZeppelin SafeMath library for integer arithmetic operations. Refer to the transaction trace generated for this issue to reproduce the overflow
I will attach as well the reproduction the for the vulnerability
[Instructions to reproduce this vulnerability (Test Case 1)]
contract FreezableToken is StandardToken {
// freezing chains
mapping (bytes32 => uint64) internal chains;
// freezing amounts for each chain
mapping (bytes32 => uint) internal freezings;
// total freezing balance per address
mapping (address => uint) internal freezingBalance;
event Freezed(address indexed to, uint64 release, uint amount);
event Released(address indexed owner, uint amount);
/**
* @dev Gets the balance of the specified address include freezing tokens.
* @param _owner The address to query the the balance of.
* @return An uint256 representing the amount owned by the passed address.
*/
function balanceOf(address _owner) public view returns (uint256 balance) {
return super.balanceOf(_owner) freezingBalance[_owner];
}
/**
* @dev Gets the balance of the specified address without freezing tokens.
* @param _owner The address to query the the balance of.
* @return An uint256 representing the amount owned by the passed address.
*/
function actualBalanceOf(address _owner) public view returns (uint256 balance) {
return super.balanceOf(_owner);
}
function freezingBalanceOf(address _owner) public view returns (uint256 balance) {
return freezingBalance[_owner];
}
/**
* @dev gets freezing count
* @param _addr Address of freeze tokens owner.
*/
function freezingCount(address _addr) public view returns (uint count) {
uint64 release = chains[toKey(_addr, 0)];
while (release != 0) {
count ;
release = chains[toKey(_addr, release)];
}
}
/**
* @dev gets freezing end date and freezing balance for the freezing portion specified by index.
* @param _addr Address of freeze tokens owner.
* @param _index Freezing portion index. It ordered by release date descending.
*/
function getFreezing(address _addr, uint _index) public view returns (uint64 _release, uint _balance) {
for (uint i = 0; i < _index 1; i ) { **<- Error Here ``< _index 1; i )``**
_release = chains[toKey(_addr, _release)];
if (_release == 0) {
return;
}
}
_balance = freezings[toKey(_addr, _release)];
}
/**
* @dev freeze your tokens to the specified address.
* Be careful, gas usage is not deterministic,
* and depends on how many freezes _to address already has.
* @param _to Address to which token will be freeze.
* @param _amount Amount of token to freeze.
* @param _until Release date, must be in future.
*/
function freezeTo(address _to, uint _amount, uint64 _until) public {
require(_to != address(0));
require(_amount <= balances[msg.sender]);
balances[msg.sender] = balances[msg.sender].sub(_amount);
bytes32 currentKey = toKey(_to, _until);
freezings[currentKey] = freezings[currentKey].add(_amount);
freezingBalance[_to] = freezingBalance[_to].add(_amount);
freeze(_to, _until);
emit Transfer(msg.sender, _to, _amount);
emit Freezed(_to, _until, _amount);
}
/**
* @dev release first available freezing tokens.
*/
function releaseOnce() public {
bytes32 headKey = toKey(msg.sender, 0);
uint64 head = chains[headKey];
require(head != 0);
require(uint64(block.timestamp) > head);
bytes32 currentKey = toKey(msg.sender, head);
uint64 next = chains[currentKey];
uint amount = freezings[currentKey];
balances[msg.sender] = balances[msg.sender].add(amount);
freezingBalance[msg.sender] = freezingBalance[msg.sender].sub(amount);
if (next == 0) {
} else {
chains[headKey] = next;
}
emit Released(msg.sender, amount);
}
/**
* @dev release all available for release freezing tokens. Gas usage is not deterministic!
* @return how many tokens was released
*/
function releaseAll() public returns (uint tokens) {
uint release;
uint balance;
(release, balance) = getFreezing(msg.sender, 0);
while (release != 0 && block.timestamp > release) {
releaseOnce();
tokens = balance;
(release, balance) = getFreezing(msg.sender, 0);
}
}
function toKey(address _addr, uint _release) internal pure returns (bytes32 result) {
// WISH masc to increase entropy
result = 0x5749534800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000;
assembly {
result := or(result, mul(_addr, 0x10000000000000000))
result := or(result, and(_release, 0xffffffffffffffff))
}
}
function freeze(address _to, uint64 _until) internal {
require (_until > block.timestamp);
bytes32 key = toKey(_to, _until);
bytes32 parentKey = toKey(_to, uint64(0));
uint64 next = chains[parentKey];
if (next == 0) {
chains[parentKey] = _until;
return;
}
bytes32 nextKey = toKey(_to, next);
uint parent;
while (next != 0 && _until > next) {
parent = next;
parentKey = nextKey;
next = chains[nextKey];
nextKey = toKey(_to, next);
}
if (_until == next) {
return;
}
if (next != 0) {
chains[key] = next;
}
chains[parentKey] = _until;
}
}```
[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ayg2D.png
CodePudding user response：
Based on the context, I'm assuming that the error message "The arithmetic operation can overflow." is from a static analysis tool.
Assuming that you're using Solidity version lower than 0.8.0, the for loop definition is theoretically vulnerable to integer overflow. But only if the _index is 2^256, the max value of uint. This value would make the _index 1 expression to overflow.
It's not sufficient to just import the SafeMath library. You also need to use its functions instead of the native arithmetic operations to prevent overflow.
contract FreezableToken is StandardToken {
// allows to use functions of the library on `uint` type
using SafeMath for uint;
function getFreezing() public {
// use the `add()` function of the library instead of the ` ` operation
for (uint i = 0; i < _index.add(1); i = i.add(1)) {
Or upgrade to Solidity version 0.8 that checks for overflow on the language level, so that you won't have to use the SafeMath library.