# Overview

Code4rena (C4) is an open organization consisting of security researchers, auditors, developers, and individuals with domain expertise in smart contracts.

A C4 audit contest is an event in which community participants, referred to as Wardens, review, audit, or analyze smart contract logic in exchange for a bounty provided by sponsoring projects.

During the audit contest outlined in this document, C4 conducted an analysis of the OpenSea Seaport smart contract system written in Solidity. The audit contest took place between May 20—June 3 2022.

## Wardens

65 Wardens contributed reports to the OpenSea Seaport contest:

1. Spearbit
2. Saw-mon_and_Natalie
3. cmichel
4. 0xsanson
5. frangio
6. broccoli (shw and jonah1005)
7. OriDabush
8. hyh
9. ming
10. Yarpo
11. IllIllI
12. shung
13. Chom
14. Dravee
15. zkhorse (karmacoma and horsefacts)
16. sces60107
17. peritoflores
18. hickuphh3
19. hack3r-0m
20. ilan
21. cccz
22. csanuragjain
23. rfa
24. oyc_109
25. twojoy
26. foobar
27. mayo
28. scaraven
29. kebabsec (okkothejawa and FlameHorizon)
30. sorrynotsorry
31. zzzitron
32. tintin
33. hubble (ksk2345 and shri4net)
34. 0x1f8b
35. NoamYakov
36. djxploit
37. 0xalpharush
38. Czar102
39. 0x29A (0x4non and rotcivegaf)
40. sirhashalot
41. gzeon
42. MaratCerby
43. zer0dot
44. defsec
45. Hawkeye (0xwags and 0xmint)
46. ignacio
47. joestakey
48. MiloTruck
49. sashik_eth
51. sach1r0
52. TomJ
53. ellahi
54. TerrierLover
55. asutorufos
56. delfin454000
57. hake
58. RoiEvenHaim

This contest was judged by 0xleastwood and HardlyDifficult. Additional judging assistance provided by Alex the Entreprenerd for reports detailing low risk and non-critical issues.

Final report assembled by liveactionllama.

# Summary

The C4 analysis yielded an aggregated total of 4 unique vulnerabilities. Of these vulnerabilities, 2 received a risk rating in the category of HIGH severity and 2 received a risk rating in the category of MEDIUM severity. Per OpenSea, all of these HIGH and MEDIUM severity findings have been addressed via Seaport 1.1. (see specific mitigations linked on each finding in the sections below)

Additionally, C4 analysis included 29 reports detailing issues with a risk rating of LOW severity or non-critical. There were also 45 reports recommending gas optimizations.

All of the issues presented here are linked back to their original finding.

# Scope

Seaport 1.0 was the focus of this audit contest. The code under review can be found within the C4 OpenSea Seaport contest repository, and is composed of 44 smart contracts written in the Solidity programming language and includes 9,771 lines of Solidity code.

# Severity Criteria

C4 assesses the severity of disclosed vulnerabilities according to a methodology based on OWASP standards.

Vulnerabilities are divided into three primary risk categories: high, medium, and low/non-critical.

High-level considerations for vulnerabilities span the following key areas when conducting assessments:

• Malicious Input Handling
• Escalation of privileges
• Arithmetic
• Gas use

Further information regarding the severity criteria referenced throughout the submission review process, please refer to the documentation provided on the C4 website.

# High Risk Findings (2)

## [H-01] Truncation in OrderValidator can lead to resetting the fill and selling more tokens

Submitted by Spearbit, also found by 0xsanson, broccoli, cmichel, hyh, ming, OriDabush, Saw-mon_and_Natalie, and Yarpo

A partial order’s fractions (numerator and denominator) can be reset to 0 due to a truncation. This can be used to craft malicious orders:

1. Consider user Alice, who has 100 ERC1155 tokens, who approved all of their tokens to the marketplaceContract.
2. Alice places a PARTIAL_OPEN order with 10 ERC1155 tokens and consideration of ETH.
3. Malory tries to fill the order in the following way:

1. Malory tries to fill 50% of the order, but instead of providing the fraction 1 / 2, Bob provides 2**118 / 2**119. This sets the totalFilled to 2**118 and totalSize to 2**119.
2. Malory tries to fill 10% of the order, by providing 1 / 10. The computation 2**118 / 2**119 + 1 / 10 is done by “cross multiplying” the denominators, leading to the acutal fraction being numerator = (2**118 * 10 + 2**119) and denominator = 2**119 * 10.
3. Because of the uint120 truncation in OrderValidator.sol#L228-L248, the numerator and denominator are truncated to 0 and 0 respectively.
4. Bob can now continue filling the order and draining any approved (1000 tokens in total) of the above ERC1155 tokens, for the same consideration amount!

### Proof of Concept

View full POC.

The following change would make the above POC fail:

modified   contracts/lib/OrderValidator.sol
@@ -225,6 +225,8 @@ contract OrderValidator is Executor, ZoneInteraction {
// Update order status and fill amount, packing struct values.
_orderStatus[orderHash].isValidated = true;
_orderStatus[orderHash].isCancelled = false;
+                require(filledNumerator + numerator <= type(uint120).max, "overflow");
+                require(denominator <= type(uint120).max, "overflow");
_orderStatus[orderHash].numerator = uint120(
filledNumerator + numerator
);
@@ -234,6 +236,8 @@ contract OrderValidator is Executor, ZoneInteraction {
// Update order status and fill amount, packing struct values.
_orderStatus[orderHash].isValidated = true;
_orderStatus[orderHash].isCancelled = false;
+            require(numerator <= type(uint120).max, "overflow");
+            require(denominator <= type(uint120).max, "overflow");
_orderStatus[orderHash].numerator = uint120(numerator);
_orderStatus[orderHash].denominator = uint120(denominator);
}

A basic fix for this would involve adding the above checks for overflow / truncation and reverting in that case. However, we think the mechanism is still flawed in some respects and requires more changes to fully fix it. See a related issue: “A malicious filler can fill a partial order in such a way that the rest cannot be filled by anyone” that points out a related but a more fundamental issue with the mechanism.

0age (OpenSea) confirmed

0xleastwood (judge) commented:

I’ve identified that this issue and all of its duplicates clearly outline how an attacker might overflow an order to continually fulfill an order at the same market price.

An instance where this issue might cause issues is during a restricted token sale. A relevant scenario is detailed as follows:

• A new token is created and the owner wishes to sell 50% of the token supply to the public.
• Because of an edge case in OrderValidator, the order fulfillment can be reset to allow the public to more than 50% of the total token supply.
• As a result, allocations intended to be distributed to investors and the team, will no longer be available.
• It is important to note, that additional tokens will be sold at the intended market price listed by the original order.

For these reasons, I believe this issue to be of high severity because it breaks certain trust assumptions made by the protocol and its userbase. By intentionally forcing a user to sell additional tokens, you are effectively altering the allocation of their wallet holdings, potentially leading to further funds loss as they may incur slippage when they have to sell these tokens back.

A great finding from all involved!

0age (OpenSea) resolved:

## [H-02] _aggregateValidFulfillmentOfferItems() can be tricked to accept invalid inputs

Submitted by Spearbit, also found by Saw-mon_and_Natalie

The _aggregateValidFulfillmentOfferItems() function aims to revert on orders with zero value or where a total consideration amount overflows. Internally this is accomplished by having a temporary variable errorBuffer, accumulating issues found, and only reverting once all the items are processed in case there was a problem found. This code is optimistic for valid inputs.

Note: there is a similar issue in _aggregateValidFulfillmentConsiderationItems(), which is reported separately.

The problem lies in how this errorBuffer is updated:

// Update error buffer (1 = zero amount, 2 = overflow).
errorBuffer := or(
errorBuffer,
or(
shl(1, lt(newAmount, amount)),
)
)

The final error handling code:

// Determine if an error code is contained in the error buffer.
switch errorBuffer
case 1 {
// Store the MissingItemAmount error signature.
mstore(0, MissingItemAmount_error_signature)

// Return, supplying MissingItemAmount signature.
revert(0, MissingItemAmount_error_len)
}
case 2 {
// If the sum overflowed, panic.
throwOverflow()
}

While the expected value is 0 (success), 1 or 2 (failure), it is possible to set it to 3, which is unhandled and considered as a “success”. This can be easily accomplished by having both an overflowing item and a zero item in the order list.

This validation error could lead to fulfilling an order with a consideration (potentially ~0) lower than expected.

### Proof of Concept

Craft an offer containing two errors (e.g. with zero amount and overflow).
Call matchOrders(). Via calls to _matchAdvancedOrders(), _fulfillAdvancedOrders(), _applyFulfillment(), _aggregateValidFulfillmentOfferItems() will be called.
The errorBuffer will get a value of 3 (the or of 1 and 2).
As the value of 3 is not detected, no error will be thrown and the order will be executed, including the mal formed values.

1. Change the check on FulfillmentApplier.sol#L465 to consider case 3.
2. Potential option: Introduce an early abort in case errorBuffer != 0 on FulfillmentApplier.sol#L338

0age (OpenSea) confirmed

HardlyDifficult (judge) decreased severity to Medium

cmichel (warden) commented:

This validation error could lead to fulfilling an order with a consideration (potentially ~0) lower than expected.

That’s correct, you can use this to fulfill an order essentially for free, that’s why I’d consider this high severity. They could have done a better job demonstrating it with a POC test case but this sentence imo shows that they were aware of the impact.

See this test case showing how to buy an NFT for 1 DAI instead of 1000 DAI.

0age (OpenSea) disagreed with Medium severity:

This is the highest-severity finding. If it were me, I’d switch this to high.

HardlyDifficult (judge) increased severity to High

0xleastwood (judge) commented:

After further consideration and discussion with @HardlyDifficult, we agree with @cmichel that this should be of high severity. As the protocol allows for invalid orders to be created, users aware of this vulnerability will be able to fulfill an order at a considerable discount. This fits the criteria of a high severity issue as it directly leads to lost funds.

0age (OpenSea) resolved:

# Medium Risk Findings (2)

## [M-01] Merkle Tree criteria can be resolved by wrong tokenIDs

Submitted by cmichel, also found by frangio and Spearbit

The protocol allows specifying several tokenIds to accept for a single offer.
A merkle tree is created out of these tokenIds and the root is stored as the identifierOrCriteria for the item.
The fulfiller then submits the actual tokenId and a proof that this tokenId is part of the merkle tree.

There are no real verifications on the merkle proof that the supplied tokenId is indeed a leaf of the merkle tree.
It’s possible to submit an intermediate hash of the merkle tree as the tokenId and trade this NFT instead of one of the requested ones.

This leads to losses for the offerer as they receive a tokenId that they did not specify in the criteria.
Usually, this criteria functionality is used to specify tokenIds with certain traits that are highly valuable. The offerer receives a low-value token that does not have these traits.

### Example

Alice wants to buy either NFT with tokenId 1 or tokenId 2.
She creates a merkle tree of it and the root is hash(1||2) = 0xe90b7bceb6e7df5418fb78d8ee546e97c83a08bbccc01a0644d599ccd2a7c2e0.
She creates an offer for this criteria.
An attacker can now acquire the NFT with tokenId 0xe90b7bceb6e7df5418fb78d8ee546e97c83a08bbccc01a0644d599ccd2a7c2e0 (or, generally, any other intermediate hash value) and fulfill the trade.

One might argue that this attack is not feasible because the provided hash is random and tokenIds are generally a counter. However, this is not required in the standard.

“While some ERC-721 smart contracts may find it convenient to start with ID 0 and simply increment by one for each new NFT, callers SHALL NOT assume that ID numbers have any specific pattern to them, and MUST treat the ID as a ‘black box’.” EIP721

Neither do the standard OpenZeppelin/Solmate implementations use a counter. They only provide internal _mint(address to, uint256 id) functions that allow specifying an arbitrary id. NFT contracts could let the user choose the token ID to mint, especially contracts that do not have any linked off-chain metadata like Uniswap LP positions.
Therefore, ERC721-compliant token contracts are vulnerable to this attack.

### Proof of Concept

Here’s a forge test (gist) that shows the issue for the situation mentioned in Example.

contract BugMerkleTree is BaseOrderTest {
struct Context {
ConsiderationInterface consideration;
bytes32 tokenCriteria;
uint256 paymentAmount;
bytes32 zoneHash;
uint256 salt;
}

function hashHashes(bytes32 hash1, bytes32 hash2)
internal
returns (bytes32)
{
// see MerkleProof.verify
bytes memory encoding;
if (hash1 <= hash2) {
encoding = abi.encodePacked(hash1, hash2);
} else {
encoding = abi.encodePacked(hash2, hash1);
}
return keccak256(encoding);
}

function testMerkleTreeBug() public resetTokenBalancesBetweenRuns {
// Alice wants to buy NFT ID 1 or 2 for token1. compute merkle tree
bytes32 leafLeft = bytes32(uint256(1));
bytes32 leafRight = bytes32(uint256(2));
bytes32 merkleRoot = hashHashes(leafLeft, leafRight);
console.logBytes32(merkleRoot);

Context memory context = Context(
consideration,
merkleRoot, /* tokenCriteria */
1e18, /* paymentAmount */
bytes32(0), /* zoneHash */
uint256(0) /* salt */
);
bytes32 conduitKey = bytes32(0);

// @audit assume there's a token where anyone can acquire IDs. smaller IDs are more valuable
// we acquire the merkle root ID

_configureERC20OfferItem(
// start, end
context.paymentAmount, context.paymentAmount
);
_configureConsiderationItem(
ItemType.ERC721_WITH_CRITERIA,
// @audit set merkle root for NFTs we want to accept
uint256(context.tokenCriteria), /* identifierOrCriteria */
1,
1,
alice
);

OrderParameters memory orderParameters = OrderParameters(
context.zone,
offerItems,
considerationItems,
OrderType.FULL_OPEN,
block.timestamp,
block.timestamp + 1000,
context.zoneHash,
context.salt,
conduitKey,
considerationItems.length
);

OrderComponents memory orderComponents = getOrderComponents(
orderParameters,
context.consideration.getNonce(alice)
);
bytes32 orderHash = context.consideration.getOrderHash(orderComponents);
bytes memory signature = signOrder(
context.consideration,
alicePk,
orderHash
);

delete offerItems;
delete considerationItems;

/*************** ATTACK STARTS HERE ***************/
orderParameters,
1, /* numerator */
1, /* denominator */
signature,
""
);

// resolve the merkle root token ID itself
CriteriaResolver[] memory cr = new CriteriaResolver[](1);
bytes32[] memory proof = new bytes32[](0);
cr[0] = CriteriaResolver(
0, // uint256 orderIndex;
Side.CONSIDERATION, // Side side;
0, // uint256 index; (item)
uint256(merkleRoot), // uint256 identifier;
proof // bytes32[] criteriaProof;
);

value: context.paymentAmount

// @audit could fulfill order without owning NFT 1 or 2
assertEq(profit, context.paymentAmount);
}
}

Usually, this is fixed by using a type-byte that indicates if one is computing the hash for a leaf or not.
An elegant fix here is to simply use hashes of the tokenIds as the leaves - instead of the tokenIds themselves. (Note that this is the natural way to compute merkle trees if the data size is not already the hash size.)
Then compute the leaf hash in the contract from the provided tokenId:

function _verifyProof(
uint256 leaf,
uint256 root,
bytes32[] memory proof
) internal pure {
bool isValid;

-    assembly {
-        let computedHash := leaf
+  bytes32 computedHash = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(leaf))
...

There can’t be a collision between a leaf hash and an intermediate hash anymore as the former is the result of hashing 32 bytes, while the latter are the results of hashing 64 bytes.

Note that this requires off-chain changes to how the merkle tree is generated. (Leaves must be hashed first.)

0age (OpenSea) confirmed, but disagreed with severity

HardlyDifficult (judge) decreased severity to Medium

0xleastwood (judge) commented:

The attack outlined by the warden showcases how an intermediate node of a proof can be used as leaves, potentially allowing the attacker to resolve the merkle tree to a different tokenId. I think in the majority of cases, this will not allow users to trade on invalid tokenIds, however, considering the ERC721 specification does not enforce a standard for how NFTs are represented using tokenIds, the issue has some legitimacy. Because of this, I believe medium severity to be justified.

0age (OpenSea) resolved:

## [M-02] Wrong items length assertion in basic order

Submitted by 0xsanson, also found by cmichel

When fulfilling a basic order we need to assert that the parameter totalOriginalAdditionalRecipients is less or equal than the length of additionalRecipients written in calldata.
However in _prepareBasicFulfillmentFromCalldata this assertion is incorrect (L346):

// Ensure supplied consideration array length is not less than original.
_assertConsiderationLengthIsNotLessThanOriginalConsiderationLength(
);

The way the function is written (L75), it accepts also a length smaller than the original by 1 (basically there shouldn’t be a + 1 in the first argument).

Interestingly enough, in the case additionalRecipients.length < totalOriginalAdditionalRecipients, the inline-assembly for-loop at (L506) will read consideration items out-of-bounds.
This can be a vector of exploits, as illustrated below.

### Proof of Concept

Alice makes the following offer: a basic order, with two considerationItems. The second item has the following data:

consideration[1] = {
itemType: ...,
token: ...,
identifierOrCriteria: ...,
startAmount: X,
endAmount: X,
recipient: Y,
}

The only quantities we need to track are the amounts X and recipient Y.

When fulfilling the order normally, the fulfiller will spend X tokens sending them to Y. It’s possible however to exploit the previous bug in a way that the fulfiller won’t need to make this transfer.

To do this, the fulfiller needs to craft the following calldata:

calldata pointer correct calldata exploit calldata
0x204 1 (tot original) 1 (tot original)
0x284 X (amount) X (length sign)
0x2a4 Y (recipient) Y (sign body)
0x2c4 0x40 (length sign) 0x00 (sign body)
0x2e4 [correct Alice sign]
0x304 [correct Alice sign]

Basically writing additionalRecipients = [] and making the signature length = X, with Y being the first 32 bytes. Of course this signature will be invalid; however it doesn’t matter since the exploiter can call validate with the correct signature beforehand.

The transaction trace will look like this:

• the assertion _assertConsiderationLengthIsNotLessThanOriginalConsiderationLength passes;
• the orderHash calculated is the correct one, since the for-loop over original consideration items picks up calldata at pointers {0x284, 0x2a4} (L513);
• the order was already validated beforehand, so the signature isn’t read;
• at the end, during the tokens transfers, only offer and consideration[0] are transferred, since the code looks at additionalRecipients which is empty.

Conclusion:

Every Order that is “basic” and has two or more consideration items can be fulfilled in a way to not trade the last consideration item in the list. The fulfiller spends less then normally, and a recipient doesn’t get his due.

There’s also an extra requirement which is stricter: this last item’s startAmount (= endAmount) needs to be smallish (< 1e6). This is because this number becomes the signature bytes length, and we need to fill the calldata with extra zeroes to complete it. Realistically then the exploit will work only if the item is a ERC20 will low decimals.

I’ve made a hardhat test that exemplifies the exploit. (Link to gist)

Remove the +1 at L347.

0age (OpenSea) confirmed, but disagreed with severity and commented:

Valid finding on the off-by-one error, this was already reported to us outside of c4 and we’re going to fix — will mention that it’s very difficult to find / craft exploitable payloads though, so severity should be lower.

HardlyDifficult (judge) decreased severity to Medium

0xleastwood (judge) commented:

While the issue outlines an exploit whereby an attacker can fulfill an order without paying the entire consideration amount, it does require a set of requirements, namely:

• The item is an ERC20 with low decimals.
• The order has considerationItems > 1.

Maximum extractable value for the most prevalent ERC20 token with low decimals, WBTC. This token uses 8 decimals and currently we know that calldata uses 16 gas for each byte used. Based on a block gas limit of 30,000,000, we can deduce that the calldata length has an upper bound of 1.875 MB. Based on this, the maximum extractable value would be (1,875,000 / 1e8) * $20,000 USD =$375 USD, assuming the price for each WBTC is $20,000 USD. Relevant EIP detailing this is found at https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4488. It is also important to note, that by utilising the entire available block space on Ethereum, it is very likely that the cost of the transaction will far exceed the amount received in the attack. The attack does in fact leak value by allowing orders to be fulfilled at a slight discount. However, because this only affects very specific order types, I believe medium severity to be justified. 2 — Med: Assets not at direct risk, but the function of the protocol or its availability could be impacted, or leak value with a hypothetical attack path with stated assumptions, but external requirements. This was one of the most interesting issues I’ve read, kudos to those who found it! 0age (OpenSea) resolved: # Low Risk and Non-Critical Issues For this contest, 29 reports were submitted by wardens detailing low risk and non-critical issues. Many of these reports were integrated into Seaport 1.1, often by the warden themselves; see this PR from OpenSea for the full set of changes. The report highlighted below by team Spearbit received the top score from the judge. The following wardens also submitted reports: Saw-mon_and_Natalie, cmichel, IllIllI, broccoli, Chom, sces60107, zkhorse, shung, hack3r-0m, peritoflores, OriDabush, hyh, scaraven, hickuphh3, ilan, cccz, 0xsanson, csanuragjain, kebabsec, sorrynotsorry, zzzitron, oyc_109, twojoy, tintin, rfa, foobar, hubble, and mayo. ## Table of Contents • [01] The function _name() returns dirty data • [02] _revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned, _doesNotMatchMagic (and _assertIsValidOrderStaticcallSuccess) have a fragile dependency on call order • [03] _performERC1155BatchTransfers consumes all gas on invalid input • [04] Hardcoded values in _validateAndFulfillBasicOrder() • [05] Helpers should have their expectations explained in NatSpec/comments • [06] ConduitTransfer identifier field can be dirty and unused • [07] Inconsistent way to return values in _verifyTime() and _verifyOrderStatus • [08] _callConduitUsingOffsets depends on compiler behaviour for inter-assembly-block cleanup • [09] Assertions.sol is missing an assertion about bounds for array length • [10] LowLevelHelpers enforce a stricter ABI standard for returndatasize • [11] _assertValidSignature allows malleable secp256k1 signatures • [12] The memory cost calculation logic _revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned is duplicated in multiple places • [13] Accumulator code depends on memory usage • [14] Doing a basic order twice gives a misleading error message • [15] Orders with moving price and endTime = type(uint).max can never be fulfilled • [16] _prepareBasicFulfillmentFromCalldata overwrites memory extensively • [17] Parameters passed to fulfillBasicOrder() insufficiently checked • [18] startAmount and endAmount being different would severely limit partial orders • [19] SafeTransferFrom: transferFrom to precompiles may succeed, a deviation from OZ’s implementation • [20] The gas computation for memory expansion rounds down instead of rounding up • [21] TokenTransferrer._performERC1155BatchTransfers leaves corrupted memory • [22] _triggerIfArmed() done outside of reentrancy guards • [23] Deviations between Solidity compiler’s checks and seaport’s checks in validateOrderParameters ## [01] The function _name() returns dirty data The function name() of Seaport.sol returns dirty data. This may create issues with frontends that expect clean data. In fact, Etherscan is having trouble decoding it! https://etherscan.io/address/0x00000000006cee72100d161c57ada5bb2be1ca79#readContract and click name! There is a junk character at the end. This also could have negative impact on composability. The external function name() gets its value from _name() in contract Seaport. contract ReferenceConsideration is ConsiderationInterface, ReferenceOrderCombiner { ... function name() external pure override returns (string memory contractName) { contractName = _name(); } ... } contract Seaport is Consideration { ... function _name() internal pure override returns (string memory) { // Return the name of the contract. assembly { mstore(0, 0x20) mstore(0x27, 0x07536561706f7274) return(0, 0x60) } } } Function _name() is supposed to return “Seaport”. The ABI encoded data has offset as the first 32 bytes (0x20 is the offset). The offset has info length 7 followed by “Seaport” (0x536561706f7274 but padded with zeros on the right). Properly encoded data would look like this: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000020 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007 536561706f727400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 The final mstore(0x27, ...) only writes to memory regions [0x29, 0x49). The remainder will likely contain junk. You can expect the actual data to be: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000020 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007 536561706f72740????????????????????????????????????????????????? Because 0x40 points to the free memory pointer, you can expect the value mload(0x40) to be a relatively small number. So only the last few least significant bits would be set, with the rest to be 0 in usual cases. ### Proof of Concept modified test/foundry/FulfillBasicOrderTest.sol @@ -32,6 +32,25 @@ contract FulfillBasicOrderTest is BaseOrderTest { uint128 tokenAmount; } + function testName() public { + string memory name = consideration.name(); + uint rds; + uint a; + uint b; + bytes32 c; + assembly { + rds := returndatasize() + returndatacopy(mload(0x40), 0, returndatasize()) + a := mload(mload(0x40)) + b := mload(add(mload(0x40), 32)) + c := mload(add(mload(0x40), 64)) + } + emit log_named_uint("returndatasize: ", rds); + emit log_named_uint("offset: ", a); + emit log_named_uint("length: ", b); + emit log_named_bytes32("data: ", c); + } + returns: returndatasize: : 96 offset: : 32 length: : 13 data: : 0x436f6e73696465726174696f6e00000000000000000000000000000000000080 The final 80 character is the initial value of the free memory pointer! Clean the last word properly. This requires an additional mstore. #### HEVM confirmation hevm confirms this. File 1: // SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT pragma solidity >=0.8.13; contract Seaport { function f() public pure returns (string memory) { return _name(); } function _name() internal pure returns (string memory) { // Return the name of the contract. assembly { mstore(0, 0x20) mstore(0x27, 0x07536561706f7274) return(0, 0x60) } } } File 2: // SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT pragma solidity >=0.8.13; contract Seaport { function f() public pure returns (string memory) { return _nameString(); } function _nameString() internal pure returns (string memory) { // Return the name of the contract. return "Seaport"; } } Run: hevm equivalence --code-a$(cat seaport1.bin) --code-b $(cat seaport2.bin) Not equal! Counterexample: Calldata: 0x26121ff0000000000000000000000000000000 Caller: 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Callvalue: 0 Adding mstore(0x49, 0x00) before the return in the first version makes it work: hevm equivalence --code-a$(cat seaport1.bin) --code-b $(cat seaport2.bin) Explored: 4 execution paths of A and: 4 paths of B. No discrepancies found. ## [02] _revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned, _doesNotMatchMagic (and _assertIsValidOrderStaticcallSuccess) have a fragile dependency on call order These helper functions rely on the undisturbed contents returned by returndatasize/returndatacopy. Should the call sites undergo some changes, they may not function as intended. They are used in numerous functions. This is further complicated in _assertIsValidOrderStaticcallSuccess which is another layer hiding this assumption. ### Proof of Concept Issues can arise if: 1. The order of these helpers change and some other call is performed 2. These helpers become non-internal library functions (because then a call is performed and in the new context the buffer is empty) An example use case is below: assembly { // Transfer the ETH and store if it succeeded or not. success := call(gas(), to, amount, 0, 0, 0, 0) } // <-- Do something here to disturb the returndata buffer // If the call fails... if (!success) { // Revert and pass the revert reason along if one was returned. _revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned(); // Otherwise, revert with a generic error message. revert EtherTransferGenericFailure(to, amount); } Simple way to make this fail: - function _revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned() internal view { + function _revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned() view { Document these assumptions as a warning and carefully test these cases. ## [03] _performERC1155BatchTransfers consumes all gas on invalid input The _performERC1155BatchTransfers function manually ABI decodes ConduitBatch1155Transfer[]. While doing so it will read field, without any validation, to determine the length of expected data and subsequently execute calldatacopy with potentially unbounded copying. This may be used as a griefing attack, and such attacks seem to be attempted to be avoided by the project, as evidenced by the logic in _revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned. This function is only used in the conduit and is exposed under the executeBatch1155 external function. The risk depends on how this will be used in the future. ### Proof of Concept Validate lengths against calldatasize(). ## [04] Hardcoded values in _validateAndFulfillBasicOrder() The distance between fields in structs is hardcoded. This could lead to mistakes with future maintenance of the code. This distance can also be calculated. ### Proof of Concept The function _validateAndFulfillBasicOrder() has a hardcoded value of FiveWords to calculate the distance between the location of considerationToken and the offerToken in the struct BasicOrderParameters. function _validateAndFulfillBasicOrder( ... assembly { // Determine if offered item type == additional recipient item type. let offerTypeIsAdditionalRecipientsType := gt(route, 3) // If route > 3 additionalRecipientsToken is at 0xc4 else 0x24. additionalRecipientsToken := calldataload( add( BasicOrder_considerationToken_cdPtr, mul(offerTypeIsAdditionalRecipientsType, FiveWords) // FiveWords is the hardcoded distance ) ) ... } struct BasicOrderParameters { address considerationToken; uint256 considerationIdentifier; uint256 considerationAmount; address payable offerer; address zone; address offerToken; ... } Calculate the distance between considerationToken and the offerToken and use that instead of FiveWords: uint256 constant BasicOrder_considerationToken_cdPtr = 0x24; uint256 constant BasicOrder_offerToken_cdPtr = 0xc4; +uint256 constant BasicOrder_Distance_oc_cdPtr = BasicOrder_offerToken_cdPtr - BasicOrder_considerationToken_cdPtr; - mul(offerTypeIsAdditionalRecipientsType, FiveWords) + mul(offerTypeIsAdditionalRecipientsType, BasicOrder_Distance_oc_cdPtr) Note: this suggestion could also be used for the assignment of conduitKey. See BasicOrderFulfiller.sol#L165-L170 and BasicOrderFulfiller.sol#L1026-L1033 ## [05] Helpers should have their expectations explained in NatSpec/comments Certain functions with unchecked blocks or other “exotic logic” have assumptions for certain input values. These assumptions are not documented well. It makes it error prone to validate against possible inputs and/or expected behaviour. Examples: 1. is _locateCurrentAmount/_applyFraction which has a strong dependency on duration != 0 and startTime < endTime (and !=). There are other cases too. 2. In AmountDeriver.sol#L13. The correct word is “interpolation”, not “extrapolation”. Similarly at other places where the word is used. 3. In AmountDeriver.sol#L114, there are assumptions about the range of amounts supported in the protocol. This need to be documented well. Protocols such as Uniswap makes such assumptions explicit. More specifically, there are overflow issues when value >= type(uint).max / type(uint120).max Around 2**136. ## Proof of Concept Document these assumptions. ## [06] ConduitTransfer identifier field can be dirty and unused There are two external entry points execute(ConduitBatch1155Transfer[] calldata batchTransfers) and executeWithBatch1155(ConduitTransfer[] calldata standardTransfers, ConduitBatch1155Transfer[] calldata batchTransfers) which trigger the internal _transfer(...) function. It works off this data structure: struct ConduitTransfer { ConduitItemType itemType; address token; address from; address to; uint256 identifier; uint256 amount; } The _transfer function only supports the ERC-20/ERC-721/ERC-1155 item types, where it ensures that amount == 1 for ERC-721, but allows identifier to be anything for ERC-20 transfers. It could be: 1. used to create multiple transactions which have identical outcomes (since the field is ignored) 2. misused to masquerade an ERC-20 transfer to look more similar to an ERC-721 transfer. This problem is similar to the SpentItem/ReceivedItem fields can be dirty and unused issue and can be triggered through that transaction, but since the Conduit is a general purpose feature and could be used and triggered by other contracts too. We believe that can have severe risks in the future. But it is hard to argue about the severity of this currently due to lack of clarity on what kinds of applications would be built on top of conduits. ### Proof of Concept Insert check that item.identifier == 0 for ConduitItemType.ERC20. ## [07] Inconsistent way to return values in _verifyTime() and _verifyOrderStatus The functions _verifyTime() and _verifyOrderStatus use two different ways to return a value. For consistency its better to use the same way every time. ### Proof of Concept function _verifyTime( ... ) internal view returns (bool valid) { ... if ( ... ) { ... // Return false as the order is invalid. return false; // method 1 } // Return true as the order time is valid. valid = true; // method 2 } function _verifyOrderStatus( ... ) internal pure returns (bool valid) { ... if ( ... ) { // Return false as the order status is invalid. return false; // method 1 } // Return true as the order status is valid. valid = true; // method 1 } Consider changing the code in the functions _verifyTime() and _verifyOrderStatus in the following way: - valid = true; + return true; ## [08] _callConduitUsingOffsets depends on compiler behaviour for inter-assembly-block cleanup The function _callConduitUsingOffsets depends on the compiler not to use the scratch space between assembly blocks. it also performs some Solidity function calls between the two blocks. A compiler behaviour change would render calling conduits always failing. Furthermore this function depends on _revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned not disturbing anything (see another relevant issue by us). ### Proof of Concept Context: Executor.sol#L498 bool success; // call the conduit. assembly { // Ensure first word of scratch space is empty. mstore(0, 0) // Perform call, placing first word of return data in scratch space. success := call( gas(), conduit, 0, callDataOffset, callDataSize, 0, OneWord ) } // <--- If the compiler changes scratch space after this (or even in the helpers below) then it will fail. // If the call failed... if (!success) { // Pass along whatever revert reason was given by the conduit. _revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned(); // Otherwise, revert with a generic error. revert InvalidCallToConduit(conduit); } // Ensure that the conduit returned the correct magic value. bytes4 result; assembly { // Take value from scratch space and place it on the stack. result := mload(0) } // Ensure result was extracted and matches EIP-1271 magic value. if (result != ConduitInterface.execute.selector) { revert InvalidConduit(conduitKey, conduit); } 1. Load the scratch space in the first assembly block 2. Since this function seems to perform “return-magic-detection”, one could consider replacing most of this with _doesNotMatchMagic ## [09] Assertions.sol is missing an assertion about bounds for array length Context: Assertions.sol#L129-L144 So far, the impact seems low and we are not able to craft an exploit. validOffsets := and( validOffsets, eq( // Load signature offset from calldata 0x244. calldataload(BasicOrder_signature_cdPtr), // Derive expected offset as start of recipients + len * 64. add( BasicOrder_signature_ptr, mul( // Additional recipients length at calldata 0x264. calldataload( BasicOrder_additionalRecipients_length_cdPtr ), // Each additional recipient has a length of 0x40. AdditionalRecipients_size ) ) ) The above code checks for the following, let len represent the length of the additionalRecipients array, then it checks that len * 64 + 0x260 == calldataload(0x244). Where all the arithmetic is in EVM. This however does not check for overflow of len * 64. It’s possible to craft malicious calldata that would satisfy this condition by overflowing on the multiplication. We need to find x such that mul(x, 64) = mul(len, 64) in EVM arithmetic. The values of x can be len + y where y is in the set {2**250, 2**251, ..., 2**255}. These are also the only such values. This would create problems whenever the value BasicOrder_additionalRecipients_length_cdPtr is used to do read from calldata. Note: the solidity compiler would add the check len < 2**64 for high level data. Note: the issues is similar to some known bugs in past versions of solc. Look for bug descriptions with “overflow” in bugs.json. ### Proof of Concept The following addition to the test would revert, but the reverts happen later in the codebase, likely due to OOG as the value gets used in a for-loop in BasicOrderFulfiller.sol#L611-L13. The test changes the length of an empty array to 2**255, everything else in the calldata remaining the same. The invariant 0 * 64 + 0x260 == 0x260 == 2**255 * 64 + 0x60 is true in EVM arithmetic. modified test/index.js @@ -15945,6 +15945,25 @@ describe(Consideration (version:${VERSION}) — initial test suite, function
).to.be.revertedWith("InvalidBasicOrderParameterEncoding");
});

+      it("Malicious calldata", async () => {
+        console.log(Good data: ${calldata}) + console.log(calldata[0x284:0x2a4]:${calldata.slice(2 * 0x284 + 2, 2 * 0x2a4 + 2)})
+        const badData = [calldata.slice(0, 2 * 0x284 + 2), "f000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000", calldata.slice(2 * 0x2a4 + 2)].join(
+          ""
+        );
+        console.log(Bad data: \${badData})
+
+        await expect(
+            value,
+          })
+        ).to.be.revertedWith("InvalidBasicOrderParameterEncoding");
+      });
+
it("Reverts if additionalRecipients has non-default offset", async () => {

Consider adding a check for calldataload(BasicOrder_additionalRecipients_length_cdPtr) < 2**64, similar to what solc generates. Alternatively, the number 2**64 can be decreased further, depending on a realistic upper bound for additionalRecipients.

## [10] LowLevelHelpers enforce a stricter ABI standard for returndatasize

Context: LowLevelHelpers.sol#L110

assembly {
// Only put result on stack if return data is exactly one word.
if eq(returndatasize(), OneWord) {

This is not compliant with the ABI standard, as the ABI standard allows for returning more data than needed. The proper one should if iszero(lt(returndatasize(), OneWord)).

This is currently used in

1. _assertValidEIP1271Signature: to check the returnvalue bytes4 magicValue of isValidSignature.
2. _assertIsValidOrderStaticcallSuccess for checking ZoneInterface returnvalue.

The ABI standard allows for extra data everywhere. That is, given a correct 32-byte value, having more data at the end is valid. Therefore, this function returns false for complaint contracts.

However, most contracts wouldn’t return more than 32-bytes when only 32-bytes are needed. A notable exception is some versions of proxy contracts in Vyper. This proxy always returned 128 bytes, with any extra data padded with zeros (source). This has caused issues with SolMate’s SafeTransferLib, leading to DOS issues on chain (source).

This is at least a low severity issue, and may even be considered Medium if there are known EIP1271 wallets in existence with the aforementioned issue. Note: for ERC20 tokens, there are known tokens with the problem (certain Curve tokens). Considering that this is a trivial fix, it’s better to be on the side of caution and make the above change.

### Proof of Concept

For a simple proof of concept, consider a minimal proxy contract that does return(0, 0x1000) (instead of the usual return(0, returndatasize())) where the ‘implementation’ is a EIP1271 wallet contract. The low level helper would revert when verifying the _assertValidEIP1271Signature, whereas a high level solidity implementation would succeed.

Change the strict equality check to a >= check.

## [11] _assertValidSignature allows malleable secp256k1 signatures

The ecrecover() call here does not verify 0 < s < secp256k1.n ÷ 2 + 1.

This restriction was introduced Homestead (EIP-2), but left the precompile unchanged. Most libraries, such as OpenZeppelin, perform this check.

There does not seem to be an immediate risk in the current use cases, because an order can be verified only once and its hash is stored. These places are _validateBasicOrderAndUpdateStatus, _validateOrderAndUpdateStatus and validate.

### Proof of Concept

Context: SignatureVerification.sol#L91

Perform the check.

## [12] The memory cost calculation logic _revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned is duplicated in multiple places

_revertWithReasonIfOneIsReturned implements a memory cost calculation logic. This is duplicated in four places: _performERC20Transfer, _performERC721Transfer, _performERC1155Transfer, _performERC1155BatchTransfer.

Several slight issues were identified with this function and those may or may not be present in five places in total.

### Proof of Concept

Reduce code duplication and risk of differences between them.

## [13] Accumulator code depends on memory usage

The accumulator is used in BasicOrderFulfiller, OrderFulfiller and OrderCombiner. It is a variable length array, but does not have a properly allocated memory space. It can be grown using _insert and _trigger will “flush” it.

The problem is it is placed at the free memory pointer, but the pointer is not increment if it would grow beyond its initial capacity. The initial capacity is AccumulatorDisarmed aka 32. In the use cases it seems at most 2 entries are inserted.

Instead of relying that this memory space is never overwritten, it may make sense pre-allocating a fixed structure. The current implementation can break on compiler upgrades or changes in the function layouts.

### Proof of Concept

Avoid using the non-memory allocating accumulator design.

## [14] Doing a basic order twice gives a misleading error message

When doing a basic order twice a misleading error message is given: OrderPartiallyFilled().

### Proof of Concept

When doing a basic order, the function _validateBasicOrderAndUpdateStatus() is called, which uses _verifyOrderStatus() to verify the order hasn’t been used before. After this function it sets _orderStatus[orderHash].numerator = 1; to indicate the orderHash has been used. When trying to reuse the same order, _verifyOrderStatus() correctly reverts. However it uses the revert message OrderPartiallyFilled() which is not correct because the order has been fully filled before.

contract OrderValidator is Executor, ZoneInteraction {
function _validateBasicOrderAndUpdateStatus( ... ) ... {
...
_verifyOrderStatus(
orderHash,
orderStatus,
true, // Only allow unused orders when fulfilling basic orders.
true // Signifies to revert if the order is invalid.
);
...
_orderStatus[orderHash].numerator = 1;
...
}
}
contract Verifiers is Assertions, SignatureVerification {
function _verifyOrderStatus(..., bool onlyAllowUnused, ... ) ... {
...
if (orderStatus.numerator != 0) {  // the second time numerator == 1
if (onlyAllowUnused) {   // true
...
}
}
}
}
revert OrderPartiallyFilled(orderHash);

Consider giving a different error message in _verifyOrderStatus() when a basic order is executed twice.

## [15] Orders with moving price and endTime = type(uint).max can never be fulfilled

It is quite realistic that many users will use type(uint).max as infinity when setting the endTime of their orders so that it stays open indefinitely. However the math (startAmount * remaining) + (endAmount * elapsed) + extraCeiling in https://github.com/ProjectOpenSea/seaport/blob/49799ce156d979132c9924a739ae45a38b39ecdd/contracts/lib/AmountDeriver.sol#L57 will almost always revert in that case since remaining will be very large and this block of code is checked Solidity.

### Proof of Concept

Context: Seaport.sol

Use the new test below and run forge test -m testAdvancedPartialMaxEndTime -vvvv:

FuzzInputs memory inputs = FuzzInputs(
0,
bytes32(0),
0,
0,
[uint120(10), 20, 30],
false,
1,
1
);

Context(consideration, inputs, 10, 10)
);
}

Context memory context
) internal resetTokenBalancesBetweenRuns {
bytes32 conduitKey = context.args.useConduit
? conduitKeyOne
: bytes32(0);

uint startAmount = 10;
uint endAmount = 20;

test1155_1.mint(
alice,
context.args.tokenId,
endAmount
);

_configureOfferItem(
ItemType.ERC1155,
context.args.tokenId,
startAmount,
endAmount
);
_configureEthConsiderationItem(
alice,
10
);

OrderParameters memory orderParameters = OrderParameters(
context.args.zone,
offerItems,
considerationItems,
OrderType.PARTIAL_OPEN,
block.timestamp, // startTime
type(uint).max, // endTime
context.args.zoneHash,
context.args.salt,
conduitKey,
considerationItems.length
);

OrderComponents memory orderComponents = getOrderComponents(
orderParameters,
context.consideration.getNonce(alice)
);

bytes32 orderHash = context.consideration.getOrderHash(orderComponents);

bytes memory signature = signOrder(
context.consideration,
alicePk,
orderHash
);

delete offerItems;
delete considerationItems;

orderParameters,
1,
1,
signature,
""
);

value: 10
(, , uint256 totalFilled, uint256 totalSize) = context
.consideration
.getOrderStatus(orderHash);
}

Need to find a way to compute the linear interpolation without overflows. For (a + b) / 2, the trick is a / 2 + b / 2 + (a & b & 1): https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20220207-00/?p=106223

Need to find a similar trick for (x * a + y * b) / (x + y).

Worst case it can also be a front end fix.

## [16] _prepareBasicFulfillmentFromCalldata overwrites memory extensively

The _prepareBasicFulfillmentFromCalldata function prepares ABI encoded data at fixed location in memory (starting at 0x80 and writing as high as 0x1e0+0x20).

The overwritten memory does not seem to be saved, and this function has multiple assembly blocks (probably for avoiding stack too deep errors?). The only field restored is the zero slot.

The only use in Seaport is the Consideration.fulfillBasicOrder_validateAndFulfillBasicOrder_prepareBasicFulfillmentFromCalldata call chain, where this does not seem to be a problem, because they are not allocating memory prior to entering this function (according to displaying the free memory pointer in the test suite).

This would become a big issue if some functions would allocate memory. It is also very dependent on the compiler version.

### Proof of Concept

Consider restoring the dirty memory.

## [17] Parameters passed to fulfillBasicOrder() insufficiently checked

The parameters that are passed to function fulfillBasicOrder() aren’t sufficiently checked. Due to some lucky circumstances this doesn’t lead to issues. However it is safer to do additional checking.

### Proof of Concept

The parameters are passed from fulfillBasicOrder() to _validateAndFulfillBasicOrder(). As these parameters are calldata, no bounds checking is done.

Assume the field for BasicOrder_basicOrderType contains the value of 6 * 4. Then the route will be 6, which is an out of bounds value. However while in assembly this is not detected. When calculating receivedItemType, it will get a value of 4, which is a valid value (ERC721_WITH_CRITERIA). However if this would be used, the rest of the logic isn’t prepared for this value.

Luckily after the assembly code, route is evaluated in Solidity. At that moment Solidity catches the out of bound value and reverts. However if the code would be optimized with more assembly then this would not have been caught.

contract Consideration is ConsiderationInterface, OrderCombiner {
function fulfillBasicOrder(BasicOrderParameters calldata parameters) ... {
...
fulfilled = _validateAndFulfillBasicOrder(parameters);
}
}
contract BasicOrderFulfiller is OrderValidator {
function _validateAndFulfillBasicOrder(  BasicOrderParameters calldata parameters ) internal returns (bool) {
...   // as the parameters are calldata, no checks on out of bound is done
BasicOrderRouteType route;
...
assembly {
...
route := div(calldataload(BasicOrder_basicOrderType_cdPtr), 4) // doesn't check for out of range values
...
mul(sub(route, 2), gt(route, 2)), // (6-2) * 1 == 4
eq(route, 2)                      // + 0 == 4  // this is a valid ItemType
)
...
if (additionalRecipientsItemType == ItemType.NATIVE) {   // this is luckily false
...
} else {
...
if (route == BasicOrderRouteType.ERC20_TO_ERC721) {  // this catches the out of range value
...
}
}
}
}

In the assembly code, check that route is within range.

## [18] startAmount and endAmount being different would severely limit partial orders

Let and represent numerator and denominator respectively, where . Similarly, and represent startAmount and endAmount. Assume that and for the sake of simplicity let’s assume that and are in reduced form (coprime, i.e., ).

Then, the following conditions have to be true for an order (here means divides ):

This severely limits the possibilities of an order. For example, if , then a strict partial order is impossible—only a full fill (1 / 1) would ever get past such checks.

### Proof of Concept

Context: Seaport.sol

Alice places a partial order with startAmount = 1000 and endAmount = 2001. Because 1000 and 2001 are coprime, such an order can only be fully filled.

Partially fillable orders with gcd(startAmount, endAmount) == 1 should ideally be disallowed. This may be done at the frontend to simplify the code.

## [19] SafeTransferFrom: transferFrom to precompiles may succeed, a deviation from OZ’s implementation

Context: TokenTransferrer.sol#L72

// If the token has no code or the transfer failed:
// Equivalent to or(iszero(success), iszero(extcodesize(token)))
// but after it's inverted for JUMPI this expression is cheaper.
if iszero(and(iszero(iszero(extcodesize(token))), success)) {

The extcodesize check is only done here. In contrast, the Openzeppelin implementation would do the extcodesize check before calling the function. Here’s where this function and OZ’s safetransfer would deviate: the token address is a precompile (so extcodesize() == 0), but it can still return data. For the same calldata abi.encodeWithSelector(ERC20.transferFrom.selector, from, to, amount):

1. it should return at least 32 bytes, (this is easy, for example the identity precompile at address 4).
2. the first 32 bytes of the returndata is 1. This looks a bit tricky to achieve, but perhaps with the right parameters, the modexp precompile should do the trick?

There were some concerns of being able to spoof this function source.

It’s also arguable that this is really a problem. Since 0.8.10, the high level call ERC20.transferFrom(...) would skip the extcodesize check because it’s always followed up by a abi.decode(...). But transferFrom is a bit of a grey area because it needs compatibility with non-compliant ERC20 tokens like USDT.

### Proof of Concept

It is hard to make a proof of concept for this. In the future, a new precompile may change this.

Consider adding an extcodesize() check before call. However, this adds an extra 100 gas and we can understand if the protocol decides to not implement this. :)

## [20] The gas computation for memory expansion rounds down instead of rounding up

Context: LowLevelHelpers.sol#L54

if returndatasize() {
// Ensure that sufficient gas is available to copy returndata
// while expanding memory where necessary. Start by computing
// the word size of returndata and allocated memory.
let returnDataWords := div(returndatasize(), OneWord)

This rounds down the number of words (for example, if returndatasize() = 31 the correct number of words is 1). The number of words is defined rounded up in EVM.

For a precise calculation, it should be div(add(returndatasize(), 31), 32). A typical routine in internal compiler code. Here is how the Solidity compiler does it.

### Proof of Concept

The above issue can affect the gas computation for returndata, although unlikely to the point that it is severe as the computation is still making some assumptions about msize.

Replace the rounding from down to up.

## [21] TokenTransferrer._performERC1155BatchTransfers leaves corrupted memory

The function will overwrite memory starting from the 0x20 offset at least 0x104 bytes (BatchTransfer1155Params_data_length_basePtr * idsLength).

In case of successful completion, it will only “restore” the free memory pointer to the starting value (mstore(FreeMemoryPointerSlot, DefaultFreeMemoryPointer)), which is likely invalid, and will leave the zero slot and any potential user memory area dirty.

### Proof of Concept

This function is only used in the Conduit in two places, executeBatch1155 and executeWithBatch1155, e.g.:

function executeBatch1155(
ConduitBatch1155Transfer[] calldata batchTransfers
) external override returns (bytes4 magicValue) {
// Ensure that the caller has an open channel.
if (!_channels[msg.sender]) {
revert ChannelClosed();
}

// Perform 1155 batch transfers.
_performERC1155BatchTransfers(batchTransfers);

// Return a magic value indicating that the transfers were performed.
magicValue = this.executeBatch1155.selector;
}

The only statement after it is returning a value type, and both of these functions are marked external, so likely this is not causing any problems the way it is used currently, but the library function is unsafe in itself.

Properly restore the corrupted memory area, similar to what _performERC1155Transfer is doing.

## [22] _triggerIfArmed() done outside of reentrancy guards

The function fulfillBasicOrder() of the reference implementation is entirely protected by the reentrancy guard. However in the production implementation, the call to _triggerIfArmed() isn’t protected by the reentrancy guard. As _triggerIfArmed() does external calls this doesn’t seem logical, however the risk seems low.

For comparison: the comparable function_validateAndFulfillAdvancedOrder() is protected end to end by a reentrancy guard, which protects the call to _applyFractionsAndTransferEach() and thus the call to _triggerIfArmed(accumulator);

### Proof of Concept

Context: ReferenceConsideration.sol#L83-L93, Consideration.sol#L76-L84, BasicOrderFulfiller.sol
Reference code:

contract ReferenceConsideration is ConsiderationInterface, ReferenceOrderCombiner {
...
function fulfillBasicOrder(BasicOrderParameters calldata parameters) ... notEntered nonReentrant ... {
...
}
...
}

Production code:

contract Consideration is ConsiderationInterface, OrderCombiner {
...
function fulfillBasicOrder(BasicOrderParameters calldata parameters) ... {
fulfilled = _validateAndFulfillBasicOrder(parameters);
}

function _validateAndFulfillBasicOrder( ... ) ... {
...
_prepareBasicFulfillmentFromCalldata( ... ); // sets reentrancy guard
...
_transferEthAndFinalize(... ) --or-- _transferERC20AndFinalize(...) // clears reentrancy guard
...
_triggerIfArmed(accumulator);  // not protected by reentrancy guard
...
}

function _prepareBasicFulfillmentFromCalldata(...) ... {
// Ensure this function cannot be triggered during a reentrant call.
_setReentrancyGuard();
...
}
function _transferEthAndFinalize(...) ... {
...
// Clear the reentrancy guard.
_clearReentrancyGuard();
}
function _transferERC20AndFinalize(...) ... {
...
// Clear the reentrancy guard.
_clearReentrancyGuard();
}
}

Do the _clearReentrancyGuard(); after the call to _triggerIfArmed(accumulator);

## [23] Deviations between Solidity compiler’s checks and seaport’s checks in validateOrderParameters

Context: Assertions.sol#L105

Some comments on comparison between code produced by solidity and this:

1. If there is a parameter BasicOrderParameters calldata, the compiler generates the following checks:

1. calldatasize() < 2**64.
2. calldataload(4) < 2**64. (Check if the initial offset is too big)
3. calldatasize() - offset >= 0x244.
2. The ABI encoder V2 has additional checks on whether calldata is properly clean. The compiler only does this checks when a value is read (a high level read; assembly doesn’t count). If you want to be complaint, then the values will need to be checked for sanity. For example, an address type should not have dirty higher order bits. For example, for considerationToken.
3. This does not check for upper bounds of length of the array additionalRecipients. The compiler typically checks if length is < 2**64. Similarly, for bytes signature. The length checks are surprisingly needed in general, otherwise some offset calculations can overflow and read values that it is not supposed to read. This can be used to fool some checks. Mentioned below.
4. Both additionalRecipents and signature are responsible for at least 1 word each in calldata (at least length should be present). The compiler checks this. But is likely missing here.

1. calldataEncodedTailSize
2. the check for tail size
5. The compiler checks that the length of the two dynamic arrays (appropriately scaled) + offsets wouldn’t be past calldatasize(). (Note: reading past calldatasize() would return 0).

Document the differences. Consider adding additional checks, if the differences need to be accounted. See a related issue regarding overflowing length, which ideally needs to be fixed.

0xleastwood (judge) commented:

This report and its merged issues* highlight several limitations which are informative to the Opensea team. This report is of high quality and is deserving of the best score. I consider all issues raised to be valid.

*Merged issues: #108, 156, 176, 195, and 205.

# Gas Optimizations

For this contest, 45 reports were submitted by wardens detailing gas optimizations. The report highlighted below by Dravee received the top score from the judge.

The following wardens also submitted reports: shung, OriDabush, IllIllI, Spearbit, cmichel, 0x1f8b, NoamYakov, djxploit, 0xalpharush, Chom, Czar102, hickuphh3, 0x29A, sirhashalot, csanuragjain, ming, gzeon, MaratCerby, zkhorse, zer0dot, defsec, Hawkeye, ignacio, joestakey, MiloTruck, rfa, oyc_109, cccz, sashik_eth, ilan, kaden, sach1r0, TomJ, twojoy, ellahi, TerrierLover, asutorufos, delfin454000, hake, mayo, peritoflores, RoiEvenHaim, Tadashi, and foobar.

• [G-01] Cheap Contract Deployment Through Clones
• [G-02] ConduitController.sol#createConduit(): Help the optimizer by saving a storage variable’s reference instead of repeatedly fetching it
• [G-03] ConduitController.sol#acceptOwnership(): Help the optimizer by saving a storage variable’s reference instead of repeatedly fetching it
• [G-04] OrderValidator.sol#_validateBasicOrderAndUpdateStatus(): Help the optimizer by saving a storage variable’s reference instead of repeatedly fetching it
• [G-05] OrderValidator.sol#_validateBasicOrderAndUpdateStatus(): avoid an unnecessary SSTORE by not writing a default value
• [G-06] OrderCombiner.sol: ++totalFilteredExecutions costs less gas compared to totalFilteredExecutions += 1
• [G-07] OrderCombiner.sol: --maximumFulfilled costs less gas compared to maximumFulfilled--
• [G-08] FulfillmentApplier.sol#_applyFulfillment(): Unchecking arithmetics operations that can’t underflow/overflow
• [G-09] /reference: Unchecking arithmetics operations that can’t underflow/overflow
• [G-10] OR conditions cost less than their equivalent AND conditions (“NOT(something is false)” costs less than “everything is true”)
• [G-11] Bytes constants are more efficient than string constants
• [G-12] An array’s length should be cached to save gas in for-loops
• [G-13] Increments can be unchecked
• [G-14] No need to explicitly initialize variables with default values
• [G-15] abi.encode() is less efficient than abi.encodePacked()

## [G-01] Cheap Contract Deployment Through Clones

See @audit tag:

contracts/conduit/ConduitController.sol:
91:         new Conduit{ salt: conduitKey }(); //@audit gas: deployment can cost less through clones

There’s a way to save a significant amount of gas on deployment using Clones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mw-pMmJ7TA .

This is a solution that was adopted, as an example, by Porter Finance. They realized that deploying using clones was 10x cheaper:

I suggest applying a similar pattern, here with a cloneDeterministic method to mimic the current create2

## [G-02] ConduitController.sol#createConduit(): Help the optimizer by saving a storage variable’s reference instead of repeatedly fetching it

To help the optimizer, declare a storage type variable and use it instead of repeatedly fetching the reference in a map or an array.

The effect can be quite significant.

As an example, instead of repeatedly calling someMap[someIndex], save its reference like this: SomeStruct storage someStruct = someMap[someIndex] and use it.

Affected code (check the @audit tags):

File: ConduitController.sol
- 94:         _conduits[conduit].owner = initialOwner;  //@audit gas: similar to L130, should declare "ConduitProperties storage _conduitProperties = _conduits[conduit];" and use it to set owner
+ 93:         ConduitProperties storage _conduitProperties = _conduits[conduit];
+ 94:         _conduitProperties.owner = initialOwner;
95:
96:         // Set conduit key used to deploy the conduit to enable reverse lookup.
- 97:         _conduits[conduit].key = conduitKey;//@audit gas: should use suggested storage variable _conduitProperties to set key
+ 97:        _conduitProperties.key = conduitKey;

Notice that this optimization already exists in the solution:

File: ConduitController.sol
129:         // Retrieve storage region where channels for the conduit are tracked.
130:         ConduitProperties storage conduitProperties = _conduits[conduit];

## [G-03] ConduitController.sol#acceptOwnership(): Help the optimizer by saving a storage variable’s reference instead of repeatedly fetching it

This optimization is similar to the one explained above in G-02.

Instead of repeatedly fetching the storage region, consider declaring and using a storage variable here (see @audit tags):

File: ConduitController.sol
232:     function acceptOwnership(address conduit) external override {
...
- 237:         if (msg.sender != _conduits[conduit].potentialOwner) { //@audit gas: similar to L130, should declare "ConduitProperties storage _conduitProperties = _conduits[conduit];" and use it to get potentialOwner
+ 236:         ConduitProperties storage _conduitProperties = _conduits[conduit];
+ 237:         if (msg.sender != _conduitProperties.potentialOwner) {
...
- 246:         delete _conduits[conduit].potentialOwner;//@audit gas: should use suggested storage variable _conduitProperties to delete potentialOwner
+ 246:         delete _conduitProperties.potentialOwner;
...
249:         emit OwnershipTransferred(
250:             conduit,
- 251:             _conduits[conduit].owner, //@audit gas: should use suggested storage variable _conduitProperties to get owner
+ 251:             _conduitProperties.owner,
252:             msg.sender
253:         );
...
- 256:         _conduits[conduit].owner = msg.sender; //@audit gas: should use suggested storage variable _conduitProperties to set owner
+ 256:         _conduitProperties.owner = msg.sender;

## [G-04] OrderValidator.sol#_validateBasicOrderAndUpdateStatus(): Help the optimizer by saving a storage variable’s reference instead of repeatedly fetching it

This optimization is similar to the one explained here.

Instead of repeatedly fetching the storage region, consider declaring and using a storage variable here (see @audit tags):

File: OrderValidator.sol
...
- 70:         _orderStatus[orderHash].isValidated = true; //@audit gas: should declare "OrderStatus storage _orderStatusStorage = _orderStatus[orderHash];" and use it to set isValidated
+ 69:         OrderStatus storage _orderStatusStorage = _orderStatus[orderHash];
+ 70:         _orderStatusStorage.isValidated = true;
...
- 72:         _orderStatus[orderHash].numerator = 1;//@audit gas: should use suggested storage variable _orderStatusStorage to set numerator
- 73:         _orderStatus[orderHash].denominator = 1;//@audit gas: should use suggested storage variable _orderStatusStorage to set denominator
+ 72:         _orderStatusStorage.numerator = 1;
+ 73:         _orderStatusStorage.denominator = 1;
74:     }

## [G-05] OrderValidator.sol#_validateBasicOrderAndUpdateStatus(): avoid an unnecessary SSTORE by not writing a default value

The following line is not needed, as it’s writing to storage a default value:

File: OrderValidator.sol
71:         _orderStatus[orderHash].isCancelled = false;//@audit gas: SSTORE not needed, already false by default

Consider removing this line completely.

## [G-06] OrderCombiner.sol: ++totalFilteredExecutions costs less gas compared to totalFilteredExecutions += 1

For a uint256 i variable, the following is true with the Optimizer enabled at 10k:

• i += 1 is the most expensive form
• i++ costs 6 gas less than i += 1
• ++i costs 5 gas less than i++ (11 gas less than i += 1)

Consider replacing totalFilteredExecutions += 1 with ++totalFilteredExecutions here:

lib/OrderCombiner.sol:490:                    totalFilteredExecutions += 1;
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:515:                    totalFilteredExecutions += 1;
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:768:                    totalFilteredExecutions += 1;

## [G-07] OrderCombiner.sol: --maximumFulfilled costs less gas compared to maximumFulfilled--

For a uint256 i variable, the following is true with the Optimizer enabled at 10k:

• i -= 1 is the most expensive form
• i-- costs 11 gas less than i -= 1
• --i costs 5 gas less than i-- (16 gas less than i -= 1)

Consider replacing maximumFulfilled-- with --maximumFulfilled here:

lib/OrderCombiner.sol:229:                maximumFulfilled--;

## [G-08] FulfillmentApplier.sol#_applyFulfillment(): Unchecking arithmetics operations that can’t underflow/overflow

Solidity version 0.8+ comes with implicit overflow and underflow checks on unsigned integers. When an overflow or an underflow isn’t possible (as an example, when a comparison is made before the arithmetic operation), some gas can be saved by using an unchecked block: https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/v0.8.10/control-structures.html#checked-or-unchecked-arithmetic

I suggest wrapping with an unchecked block here (see @audit tags for more details):

File: FulfillmentApplier.sol
090:         if (considerationItem.amount > execution.item.amount) {
...
098:                 .parameters
099:                 .consideration[targetComponent.itemIndex]
100:                 .startAmount = considerationItem.amount - execution.item.amount;
...
104:         } else {
...
110:                 .parameters
111:                 .offer[targetComponent.itemIndex]
112:                 .startAmount = execution.item.amount - considerationItem.amount;
113:         }

## [G-09] /reference: Unchecking arithmetics operations that can’t underflow/overflow

This is similar to the optimization above, except that here, contracts under /reference are just readable versions of the real contracts to be deployed.

The following lines should be unchecked, please check that this is the case in their corresponding assembly code:

• reference/lib/ReferenceBasicOrderFulfiller.sol:
842              if (additionalRecipientAmount > etherRemaining) {
843                  revert InsufficientEtherSupplied();
844              }
...
865          if (etherRemaining > amount) {
866              // Transfer remaining Ether to the caller.
867:             _transferEth(payable(msg.sender), etherRemaining - amount);
868          }
• reference/lib/ReferenceFulfillmentApplier.sol:
99          // If total consideration amount exceeds the offer amount...
100          if (considerationItem.amount > execution.item.amount) {
...
107              ordersToExecute[targetComponent.orderIndex]
109:                 .amount = considerationItem.amount - execution.item.amount;
...
113          } else {
...
118              ordersToExecute[targetComponent.orderIndex]
119                  .spentItems[targetComponent.itemIndex]
120:                 .amount = execution.item.amount - considerationItem.amount;
121          }
189          // If no available order was located...
190          if (nextComponentIndex == 0) {
191              // Return with an empty execution element that will be filtered.
192              // prettier-ignore
193              return Execution(
195                      ItemType.NATIVE,
197                      0,
198                      0,
200                  ),
202                  bytes32(0)
203              );
204          }
205
206          // If the fulfillment components are offer components...
207          if (side == Side.OFFER) {
208              // Return execution for aggregated items provided by offerer.
209              // prettier-ignore
210              return _aggregateValidFulfillmentOfferItems(
211                  ordersToExecute,
212                  fulfillmentComponents,
213:                 nextComponentIndex - 1
214              );
215          } else {
216              // Otherwise, fulfillment components are consideration
217              // components. Return execution for aggregated items provided by
218              // the fulfiller.
219              // prettier-ignore
220              return _aggregateConsiderationItems(
221                  ordersToExecute,
222                  fulfillmentComponents,
223:                 nextComponentIndex - 1,
224                  fulfillerConduitKey
225              );
226          }
• reference/lib/ReferenceOrderCombiner.sol:
629                  if (item.amount > etherRemaining) {
630                      revert InsufficientEtherSupplied();
631                  }
632
633                  // Reduce ether remaining by amount.
634:                 etherRemaining -= item.amount;
• reference/lib/ReferenceOrderFulfiller.sol:
220                      if (amount > etherRemaining) {
221                          revert InsufficientEtherSupplied();
222                      }
223                      // Reduce ether remaining by amount.
224:                     etherRemaining -= amount;
273                      if (amount > etherRemaining) {
274                          revert InsufficientEtherSupplied();
275                      }
276                      // Reduce ether remaining by amount.
277:                     etherRemaining -= amount;
• reference/lib/ReferenceOrderValidator.sol:
220              if (filledNumerator + numerator > denominator) {
221                  // Reduce current numerator so it + supplied = denominator.
222:                 numerator = denominator - filledNumerator;
223              }

## [G-10] OR conditions cost less than their equivalent AND conditions (“NOT(something is false)” costs less than “everything is true”)

Remember that the equivalent of (a && b) is !(!a || !b)

Even with the 10k Optimizer enabled: OR conditions cost less than their equivalent AND conditions.

### Proof of Concept

• Compare in Remix this example contract’s 2 diffs (or any test-contract of your choice, as experimentation always show the same results):
pragma solidity 0.8.13;

contract Test {
bool isOpen;
bool channelPreviouslyOpen;

function boolTest() external view returns (uint) {
-       if (isOpen && !channelPreviouslyOpen) {
+       if (!(!isOpen || channelPreviouslyOpen)) {
return 1;
-       } else if (!isOpen && channelPreviouslyOpen) {
+       } else if (!(isOpen || !channelPreviouslyOpen)) {
return 2;
}
}

function setBools(bool _isOpen, bool _channelPreviouslyOpen) external {
isOpen = _isOpen;
channelPreviouslyOpen= _channelPreviouslyOpen;
}
}
• Notice that, even with the 10k Optimizer, the red diff version costs 8719 gas, while the green diff version costs 8707 gas, effectively saving 12 gas.

### Affected Code

Added together, it’s possible to save a significant amount of gas by replacing the && conditions by their || equivalent in the solution.

• ConduitController.sol#updateChannel()

Use !(!isOpen || channelPreviouslyOpen) instead of isOpen && !channelPreviouslyOpen and use !(isOpen || !channelPreviouslyOpen) instead of !isOpen && channelPreviouslyOpen:

File: ConduitController.sol
- 141:         if (isOpen && !channelPreviouslyOpen) {
+ 141:         if (!(!isOpen || channelPreviouslyOpen))
...
- 149:         } else if (!isOpen && channelPreviouslyOpen) {
+ 149:         } else if (!(isOpen || !channelPreviouslyOpen))

Use !(!(numerator < denominator) || !_doesNotSupportPartialFills(orderParameters.orderType)) instead of numerator < denominator && _doesNotSupportPartialFills(orderParameters.orderType:

contracts/lib/OrderValidator.sol:
142          if (
-  143:             numerator < denominator &&
-  144              _doesNotSupportPartialFills(orderParameters.orderType)
+  143:             !(!(numerator < denominator) ||
+  144              !_doesNotSupportPartialFills(orderParameters.orderType))
145          ) {
• OrderValidator.sol#_cancel()

Use !(msg.sender == offerer || msg.sender == zone) instead of msg.sender != offerer && msg.sender != zone here:

-  280:                 if (msg.sender != offerer && msg.sender != zone) {
+  280:                 if (!(msg.sender == offerer || msg.sender == zone))
• SignatureVerification.sol#_assertValidSignature()

Use !(v == 27 || v == 28) instead of v != 27 && v != 28:

contracts/lib/SignatureVerification.sol:
-  78:             if (v != 27 && v != 28) {
+  78:             if (!(v == 27 || v == 28))
• ZoneInteraction.sol#_assertRestrictedBasicOrderValidity()

Use !(!(uint256(orderType) > 1) || msg.sender == zone || msg.sender == offerer) instead of uint256(orderType) > 1 && msg.sender != zone && msg.sender != offerer:

contracts/lib/ZoneInteraction.sol:
46          if (
-   47:             uint256(orderType) > 1 &&
-   48:             msg.sender != zone &&
-   49              msg.sender != offerer
+   47:             !(!(uint256(orderType) > 1) ||
+   48:             msg.sender == zone ||
+   49              msg.sender == offerer)
50          ) {

Use !(!(uint256(orderType) > 1) || msg.sender == zone || msg.sender == offerer) instead of uint256(orderType) > 1 && msg.sender != zone && msg.sender != offerer:

115          if (
-  116:             uint256(orderType) > 1 &&
-  117:             msg.sender != zone &&
-  118              msg.sender != offerer
+  116:             !(!(uint256(orderType) > 1) ||
+  117:             msg.sender == zone ||
+  118              msg.sender == offerer)
119          ) {

121              if (
-  123                  criteriaResolvers.length == 0
+  123                  criteriaResolvers.length != 0)
124              ) {

## [G-11] Bytes constants are more efficient than string constants

From the Solidity doc:

If you can limit the length to a certain number of bytes, always use one of bytes1 to bytes32 because they are much cheaper.

Why do Solidity examples use bytes32 type instead of string?

bytes32 uses less gas because it fits in a single word of the EVM, and string is a dynamically sized-type which has current limitations in Solidity (such as can’t be returned from a function to a contract).

If data can fit into 32 bytes, then you should use bytes32 datatype rather than bytes or strings as it is cheaper in solidity. Basically, any fixed size variable in solidity is cheaper than variable size. That will save gas on the contract.

Instances of string constant that can be replaced by bytes(1..32) constant :

reference/lib/ReferenceConsiderationBase.sol:
29:     string internal constant _NAME = "Consideration";
30:     string internal constant _VERSION = "rc.1";

## [G-12] An array’s length should be cached to save gas in for-loops

Reading array length at each iteration of the loop consumes more gas than necessary.

In the best case scenario (length read on a memory variable), caching the array length in the stack saves around 3 gas per iteration. In the worst case scenario (external calls at each iteration), the amount of gas wasted can be massive.

Here, lengths are only read from memory.

Consider storing the array’s length in a variable before the for-loop, and use this newly created variable instead:

lib/OrderCombiner.sol:247:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < offer.length; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:291:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < consideration.length; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:598:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < consideration.length; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:621:        for (uint256 i = 0; i < executions.length; ) {
lib/OrderFulfiller.sol:217:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < orderParameters.offer.length; ) {
lib/OrderFulfiller.sol:306:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < orderParameters.consideration.length; ) {

## [G-13] Increments can be unchecked

In Solidity 0.8+, there’s a default overflow check on unsigned integers. It’s possible to uncheck this in for-loops and save some gas at each iteration, but at the cost of some code readability, as this uncheck cannot be made inline.

ethereum/solidity#10695

### Affected code

lib/CriteriaResolution.sol:56:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalCriteriaResolvers; ++i) {
lib/CriteriaResolution.sol:166:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalAdvancedOrders; ++i) {
lib/CriteriaResolution.sol:184:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < totalItems; ++j) {
lib/CriteriaResolution.sol:199:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < totalItems; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:181:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOrders; ++i) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:247:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < offer.length; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:291:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < consideration.length; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:373:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOrders; ++i) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:473:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOfferFulfillments; ++i) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:498:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalConsiderationFulfillments; ++i) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:577:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOrders; ++i) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:598:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < consideration.length; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:754:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalFulfillments; ++i) {
lib/OrderFulfiller.sol:471:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOrders; ++i) {

The code would go from:

for (uint256 i; i < numIterations; ++i) {
// ...
}

to:

for (uint256 i; i < numIterations;) {
// ...
unchecked { ++i; }
}

The risk of overflow is inexistant for uint256 here.

Note that this is already applied at some places in the solution. As an example:

contracts/conduit/Conduit.sol:
66:         for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalStandardTransfers; ) {
...
74:             unchecked {
75                  ++i;
76              }

130:         for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalStandardTransfers; ) {
...
138:             unchecked {
139                  ++i;
140              }

contracts/lib/BasicOrderFulfiller.sol:
948:         for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalAdditionalRecipients; ) {
...
975:             unchecked {
976                  ++i;
977              }

1040:         for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalAdditionalRecipients; ) {
...
1064:             unchecked {
1065                  ++i;
1066              }

## [G-14] No need to explicitly initialize variables with default values

This finding is only true without the Optimizer

If a variable is not set/initialized, it is assumed to have the default value (0 for uint, false for bool, address(0) for address…). Explicitly initializing it with its default value is an anti-pattern and wastes gas.

As an example: for (uint256 i = 0; i < numIterations; ++i) { should be replaced with for (uint256 i; i < numIterations; ++i) {

Affected code:

conduit/Conduit.sol:66:        for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalStandardTransfers; ) {
conduit/Conduit.sol:130:        for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalStandardTransfers; ) {
lib/AmountDeriver.sol:44:            uint256 extraCeiling = 0;
lib/BasicOrderFulfiller.sol:948:        for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalAdditionalRecipients; ) {
lib/BasicOrderFulfiller.sol:1040:        for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalAdditionalRecipients; ) {
lib/CriteriaResolution.sol:56:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalCriteriaResolvers; ++i) {
lib/CriteriaResolution.sol:166:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalAdvancedOrders; ++i) {
lib/CriteriaResolution.sol:184:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < totalItems; ++j) {
lib/CriteriaResolution.sol:199:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < totalItems; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:181:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOrders; ++i) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:247:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < offer.length; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:291:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < consideration.length; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:373:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOrders; ++i) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:470:            uint256 totalFilteredExecutions = 0;
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:473:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOfferFulfillments; ++i) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:498:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalConsiderationFulfillments; ++i) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:577:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOrders; ++i) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:598:                for (uint256 j = 0; j < consideration.length; ++j) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:621:        for (uint256 i = 0; i < executions.length; ) {
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:751:            uint256 totalFilteredExecutions = 0;
lib/OrderCombiner.sol:754:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalFulfillments; ++i) {
lib/OrderFulfiller.sol:217:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < orderParameters.offer.length; ) {
lib/OrderFulfiller.sol:306:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < orderParameters.consideration.length; ) {
lib/OrderFulfiller.sol:471:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOrders; ++i) {
lib/OrderValidator.sol:272:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOrders; ) {
lib/OrderValidator.sol:350:            for (uint256 i = 0; i < totalOrders; ) {

I suggest removing explicit initializations for default values.

## [G-15] abi.encode() is less efficient than abi.encodePacked()

Changing abi.encode function to abi.encodePacked can save gas since the abi.encode function pads extra null bytes at the end of the call data, which is unnecessary. Also, in general, abi.encodePacked is more gas-efficient (see Solidity-Encode-Gas-Comparison).

Consider using abi.encodePacked() here:

contracts/lib/ConsiderationBase.sol:
77          return keccak256(
78:             abi.encode(
79                  _EIP_712_DOMAIN_TYPEHASH,
80                  _NAME_HASH,
81                  _VERSION_HASH,
82                  block.chainid,
84              )
85          );

Consider using the assembly equivalent for abi.encodePacked() here:

reference/lib/ReferenceBasicOrderFulfiller.sol:
513          orderHash = keccak256(
514:             abi.encode(
515                  hashes.typeHash,
516                  parameters.offerer,
517                  parameters.zone,
518                  hashes.offerItemsHash,
520                  fulfillmentItemTypes.orderType,
521                  parameters.startTime,
522                  parameters.endTime,
523                  parameters.zoneHash,
524                  parameters.salt,
525                  parameters.offererConduitKey,
526                  nonce
527              )
528          );

609              hashes.considerationHashes[0] = keccak256(
610:                 abi.encode(
611                      hashes.typeHash,
612                      primaryConsiderationItem.itemType,
613                      primaryConsiderationItem.token,
614                      primaryConsiderationItem.identifierOrCriteria,
615                      primaryConsiderationItem.startAmount,
616                      primaryConsiderationItem.endAmount,
617                      primaryConsiderationItem.recipient
618                  )
619              );

684                  hashes.considerationHashes[recipientCount + 1] = keccak256(
685:                     abi.encode(
686                          hashes.typeHash,
693                      )
694                  );
695              }

756                  keccak256(
757:                     abi.encode(
758                          hashes.typeHash,
759                          offerItem.itemType,
760                          offerItem.token,
761                          offerItem.identifier,
762                          offerItem.amount,
763                          offerItem.amount //Assembly uses OfferItem instead of SpentItem.
764                      )
765                  )

reference/lib/ReferenceConsiderationBase.sol:
117          return keccak256(
118:             abi.encode(
119                  _eip712DomainTypeHash,
120                  _nameHash,
121                  _versionHash,
122                  block.chainid,
124              )
125          );

reference/lib/ReferenceGettersAndDerivers.sol:
41          return
42              keccak256(
43:                 abi.encode(
44                      _OFFER_ITEM_TYPEHASH,
45                      offerItem.itemType,
46                      offerItem.token,
47                      offerItem.identifierOrCriteria,
48                      offerItem.startAmount,
49                      offerItem.endAmount
50                  )
51              );
52      }

66          return
67              keccak256(
68:                 abi.encode(
69                      _CONSIDERATION_ITEM_TYPEHASH,
70                      considerationItem.itemType,
71                      considerationItem.token,
72                      considerationItem.identifierOrCriteria,
73                      considerationItem.startAmount,
74                      considerationItem.endAmount,
75                      considerationItem.recipient
76                  )
77              );

123          return
124              keccak256(
125:                 abi.encode(
126                      _ORDER_TYPEHASH,
127                      orderParameters.offerer,
128                      orderParameters.zone,
129                      keccak256(abi.encodePacked(offerHashes)),
130                      keccak256(abi.encodePacked(considerationHashes)),
131                      orderParameters.orderType,
132                      orderParameters.startTime,
133                      orderParameters.endTime,
134                      orderParameters.zoneHash,
135                      orderParameters.salt,
136                      orderParameters.conduitKey,
137                      nonce
138                  )
139              );

Notice that this is already used at other places for a similar situation:

reference/lib/ReferenceBasicOrderFulfiller.sol:
769              hashes.offerItemsHash = keccak256(
770                  abi.encodePacked(offerItemHashes)
771              );

reference/lib/ReferenceGettersAndDerivers.sol:
129                      keccak256(abi.encodePacked(offerHashes)),
130                      keccak256(abi.encodePacked(considerationHashes)),

HardlyDifficult (judge) commented:

[G-01] Cheap Contract Deployment Through Clones

Deploying clones would save cost when Conduits are created, however it also increases the cost to use the conduits created. That increase has a tiny impact, but I assume it was intentional to favor the end-users here - creating conduits will be relatively rare and reserved for platforms and/or power users.

[G-02] ConduitController.sol#createConduit(): Help the optimizer by saving a storage variable’s reference instead of repeatedly fetching it

This general tactic can often result in significant savings, but I ran the recommended change and here it only saves ~100 gas on createConduit.

[G-03] ConduitController.sol#acceptOwnership(): Help the optimizer by saving a storage variable’s reference instead of repeatedly fetching it

This will save some gas, but acceptOwnership is not a critical code path so an optimization here would not impact many transactions.

[G-04] OrderValidator.sol#_validateBasicOrderAndUpdateStatus(): Help the optimizer by saving a storage variable’s reference instead of repeatedly fetching it

This is similar to the recommendation in issue #60 (although #60 appears to be a bit more thorough) and provides fairly significant savings on critical code paths.

[G-05] OrderValidator.sol#_validateBasicOrderAndUpdateStatus(): avoid an unnecessary SSTORE by not writing a default value

This is a safe change to make since _verifyOrderStatus will first revert if the order is already canceled. Considered independently from the rec above, this saves ~300 gas on fulfillBasicOrder.

[G-06] OrderCombiner.sol: ++totalFilteredExecutions costs less gas compared to totalFilteredExecutions += 1
[G-07] OrderCombiner.sol: —maximumFulfilled costs less gas compared to maximumFulfilled—
[G-08] FulfillmentApplier.sol#_applyFulfillment(): Unchecking arithmetics operations that can’t underflow/overflow
[G-09] /reference: Unchecking arithmetics operations that can’t underflow/overflow
[G-12] An array’s length should be cached to save gas in for-loops
[G-13] Increments can be unchecked

Yes these should provide some savings.

[G-10] OR conditions cost less than their equivalent AND conditions (“NOT(something is false)” costs less than “everything is true”)

It’s unfortunate that the optimizer cannot handle scenarios like this automatically… There does appear to be a small win here, but it’s debatable whether the impact to readability is worth it here.

[G-11] Bytes constants are more efficient than string constants

These changes seem to be focused on getters, it’s not clear it would impact gas for any transactions.

[G-14] No need to explicitly initialize variables with default values

This appears to be handled by the optimizer automatically now. Testing did not change the gas results.

[G-15] abi.encode() is less efficient than abi.encodePacked()

This recommendation causes tests to fail, suggesting this change violates the EIP-712 standard.

# Disclosures

C4 is an open organization governed by participants in the community.

C4 Contests incentivize the discovery of exploits, vulnerabilities, and bugs in smart contracts. Security researchers are rewarded at an increasing rate for finding higher-risk issues. Contest submissions are judged by a knowledgeable security researcher and solidity developer and disclosed to sponsoring developers. C4 does not conduct formal verification regarding the provided code but instead provides final verification.

C4 does not provide any guarantee or warranty regarding the security of this project. All smart contract software should be used at the sole risk and responsibility of users.