算术运算会溢出是否有可能导致算术溢出?
我想要一些有关以下合同功能的建议。断言或需要输入吐痰回来“ parsererror:预期'',但有标识符 断言(uint i = 0; i< _index+1; i ++){“
我倾向于要求实施,给出安全的数学库在合同开始时已经进口。我看到了许多不同的合同,实现了一些问题,以确定正确的
方法
。整数算术
。
操作
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.sstatic.net/ayg2D.png
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.sstatic.net/ayg2D.png
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5906/d59060df4059a6cc364216c4d63ceec29ef7fe66" alt="扫码二维码加入Web技术交流群"
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(1)
基于上下文,我假设错误消息“算术操作会溢出”。来自静态分析工具。
假设您使用的固体版本低于0.8.0,则for循环定义在理论上很容易受到整数溢出的影响。但是,只有当
_index
为2^256时,uint
的最大值。此值将使_index + 1
表达式溢出。仅导入Safemath库是不够的。您还需要使用其功能而不是本机算术操作来防止溢出。
或升级到Solidity版本0.8+,该版本在语言级别上检查溢出,因此您不必使用Safemath库。
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 ofuint
. 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.
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.