# Issue H-1: MarketUtils.getPoolValueInfo() does not use !maximize when evaluating impactPoolUsd, leading to wrong logic of maximizing or minimizing the pool value. Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/160 ## Found by chaduke ## Summary ``MarketUtils.getPoolValueInfo()`` does not use ``!maximize`` when evaluating ``impactPoolUsd``, leading to wrong logic of maximizing or minimizing the pool value. This function is reachable by a withdrawal order to determine the amount of long/short tokens to withdraw, as a result, such amounts might be overesitmated due to the wrong logic in ``MarketUtils.getPoolValueInfo()``, leading to possible draining of the pool in the long run! ## Vulnerability Detail ``MarketUtils.getPoolValueInfo()`` is used to get the USD value of a pool. It is called in a withdrawal order execution to determine the amount of long/short tokens to withdraw via flow ``WithdrawalUtils.executeWithdrawal() -> _executeWithdrawal() -> WithdrawUtils.executeWithdrawal() -> _executeWithdrawal() -> _getOutputAmounts() -> MarketUtils.getPoolValueInfo()``. Let's look at ``MarketUtils.getPoolValueInfo()`` assuming maximize = false. (which is the case in a withdrawl order). That is, we are trying to minimize the pool value. This is understandable since we need to minimize the output amounts of withdrawn tokens in favor of the system. The analysis for the case of maximize = true is similar. [https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L289-L375](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L289-L375) There are a few items we need to calculate: 1. longTokenUsd: we pick price longTokenPrice.pickPrice(maximize); 2. shortTokenUsd: we pick price shortTokenPrice.pickPrice(maximize) 3. totalBorrowingFee for the long side, no optimization option. 4. totalBorrowingFee for the short side, no optimization option. 5. impactPoolUsd, indexTokenPrice.pickPrice(maximize) is chosen, which is wrong, since this is to be subtracted from the total Usd value, we need to use indexTokenPrice.pickPrice(!maximize), just like the next item for calculating Pnl. 6. longPnl and shortPnl, both use the mode ``!maximize`` since both of them will be subtracted from the total value. In summary, just like calculating Pnl, we need to use ``indexTokenPrice.pickPrice(!maximize)`` instead of ``indexTokenPrice.pickPrice(maximize)`` to calculate ``impactPoolUsd``. Only in this way, the logic of the input parameter ``maximize`` can be implemented properly. ## Impact ## Code Snippet getPoolValueInfo() does not use !maximize when evaluating impactPoolUsd, leading to wrong logic of maximizing or minimizing the pool value. As a result, when ``isMaximize`` is true, the returned value is actually not maximized! In the case of withdrawl, a slight overestimation of the output tokens might occur and lead to possible draining of the pool in the long run! ## Tool used VSCode Manual Review ## Recommendation In function ``MarketUtils.getPoolValueInfo()`` we need to use ``indexTokenPrice.pickPrice(!maximize)`` instead of ``indexTokenPrice.pickPrice(maximize)`` to calculate ``impactPoolUsd``. ## Discussion **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/13913a28e4b07f5a2cc0065fdebc34c437864c71 # Issue H-2: Pool amount adjustments for collateral decreases aren't undone if swaps are successful Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/235 ## Found by IllIllI, bin2chen, stent ## Summary Pool amount adjustments, which are added to storage as a temporary accounting tracking mechanism, aren't undone if swaps are successful ## Vulnerability Detail `swapProfitToCollateralToken()` uses `Keys.poolAmountAdjustmentKey()` to temporarily store an adjustment to the pool amount, and undoes the adjustment at the end of the function, after the try-catch block. However, the function bypasses the end of the function in the succeess case, because it returns early, and therefore doesn't undo the adjustment. ## Impact The value is looked up and used in `getNextPoolAmountsParams()` for swap orders that occur afterwards. The adjusted amount will be included until someone does another swap of the profit to a collateral token, at which point it will have the new value (and not be reset unless there is an exception). The adjustment ends up being used in the calculation of swap impact, so all subsequent swaps will be priced incorrectly, giving some users discounts they don't deserve, and others a penalty that they don't deserve, when doing swaps. ## Code Snippet Adjustment is added to storage, but isn't undone if `swapHandler.swap()` is successful: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/position/DecreasePositionCollateralUtils.sol : DecreasePositionCollateralUtils.swapProfitToCollateralToken() #1 452 // adjust the pool amount by the poolAmountDelta so that the price impact of the swap will be 453 // more accurately calculated 454 @> params.contracts.dataStore.setInt(Keys.poolAmountAdjustmentKey(params.market.marketToken, pnlToken), poolAmountDelta); 455 456 try params.contracts.swapHandler.swap( 457 SwapUtils.SwapParams( ... 470 ) 471 ) returns (address /* tokenOut */, uint256 swapOutputAmount) { 472 @> return (true, swapOutputAmount); 473 } catch Error(string memory reason) { 474 emit SwapUtils.SwapReverted(reason, ""); 475 } catch (bytes memory reasonBytes) { 476 (string memory reason, /* bool hasRevertMessage */) = ErrorUtils.getRevertMessage(reasonBytes); 477 emit SwapUtils.SwapReverted(reason, reasonBytes); 478 } 479 480 @> params.contracts.dataStore.setInt(Keys.poolAmountAdjustmentKey(params.market.marketToken, pnlToken), 0); 481 } 482 483 return (false, 0); 484: } ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/position/DecreasePositionCollateralUtils.sol#L452-L484 ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Undo the adjustment before returning ## Discussion **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/pull/155/commits/cd9f9c2f0f025c819f1080332514d6a2dedc05fc the previous flow of updating a global variable seemed more of a workaround to fix the pool amount for the swap the code was updated to use a more straightforward solution of updating the pool amount directly before performing the swap # Issue H-3: Swaps associated with position orders will use the wrong price Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/240 ## Found by IllIllI ## Summary Swaps of tokens gained via position orders will use the wrong price as the latest price ## Vulnerability Detail In the previous iteration of the code, the `getLatestPrice()` function returned the secondary price, and fell back to the primary price if the secondary price didn't exist. In the current version of the code, `getLatestPrice()` returns the custom price if one exists, which may be the trigger price or the maximized price. This price is used not only for the execution of the order, but also now for the swaps of the tokens after the order executes. ## Impact If, for example, the order is a market increase order, the custom price is set to the maximized price for the execution which means the liquidity taker got fewer shares than the maker gave. When those shares are swapped, that maximized price is still used, whereas if the swap had been done as a separate order, no custom price would be consulted. The two methods of doing swaps get different prices, which leads to arbitrage opportunities. ## Code Snippet Normal swap orders never have an exact price set: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/order/BaseOrderUtils.sol : BaseOrderUtils.setExactOrderPrice() #1 203 function setExactOrderPrice( 204 Oracle oracle, 205 address indexToken, 206 Order.OrderType orderType, 207 uint256 triggerPrice, 208 bool isLong 209 ) internal { 210 if (isSwapOrder(orderType)) { 211 @> return; 212: } ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/order/BaseOrderUtils.sol#L203-L212 but swaps after the order will use the price set [during the position-altering portion](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/order/BaseOrderUtils.sol#L229-L297) of the order: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/swap/SwapUtils.sol : SwapUtils._swap() #2 178 function _swap(SwapParams memory params, _SwapParams memory _params) internal returns (address, uint256) { 179 SwapCache memory cache; 180 181 if (_params.tokenIn != _params.market.longToken && _params.tokenIn != _params.market.shortToken) { 182 revert Errors.InvalidTokenIn(_params.tokenIn, _params.market.marketToken); 183 } 184 185 MarketUtils.validateSwapMarket(_params.market); 186 187 cache.tokenOut = MarketUtils.getOppositeToken(_params.tokenIn, _params.market); 188 @> cache.tokenInPrice = params.oracle.getLatestPrice(_params.tokenIn); 189:@> cache.tokenOutPrice = params.oracle.getLatestPrice(cache.tokenOut); ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/swap/SwapUtils.sol#L178-L189 ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Introduce a flag to the `getLatestPrice()` function, indicating whether to use the custom price if it exists ## Discussion **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/3243138ebdc6f86e06f5b1fef91312113ef36e20 the previous logic of allowing multiple token types led to logical issues and unexpected pricing differences the code was updated to use a single (min, max) price value per token instead for each transaction # Issue H-4: Limit swap orders can be used to get a free look into the future Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/241 ## Found by 0xdeadbeef, IllIllI, Nyx ## Summary Users can cancel their limit swap orders to get a free look into prices in future blocks ## Vulnerability Detail This is a part of the same issue that was described in the [last contest](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-02-gmx-judging/issues/130). The sponsor fixed the bug for `LimitDecrease` and `StopLossDecrease`, but not for `LimitSwap`. Any swap limit order submitted in block range N can't be executed until block range N+2, because the block range is forced to be after the submitted block range, and keepers can't execute until the price has been archived, which necessarily won't be until _after_ block range N+1. Consider what happens when half of the oracle's block ranges are off from the other half, e.g.: ```text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 < block number O1: A B B B B C C C D 02: A A B B B B C C C ^^ grouped oracle block ranges ``` At block 1, oracles in both groups (O1 and O2) are in the same block range A, and someone submits a large swap limit order (N). At block 6, oracles in O1 are in N+2, but oracles in O2 are still in N+1. This means that the swap limit order will execute at the median price of block 5 (since the earliest group to have archive prices at block 6 for N+1 will be O1) and market swap order submitted at block 6 in the other direction will execute at the median price of block 6 since O2 will be the first group to archive a price range that will contain block 6. By the end of block 5, the price for O1 is known, and the price that O2 will get at block 6 can be predicted with high probability (e.g. if the price has just gapped a few cents), so a trader will know whether the two orders will create a profit or not. If a profit is expected, they'll submit the market order at block 6. If a loss is expected, they'll cancel the swap limit order from block 1, and only have to cover gas fees. Essentially the logic is that limit swap orders will use earlier prices, and market orders (with swaps) will use later prices, and since oracle block ranges aren't fixed, an attacker is able to know both prices before having their orders executed, and use large order sizes to capitalize on small price differences. ## Impact There is a lot of work involved in calculating statistics about block ranges for oracles and their processing time/queues, and ensuring one gets the prices essentially when the keepers do, but this is likely less work than co-located high frequency traders in traditional finance have to do, and if there's a risk free profit to be made, they'll put in the work to do it every single time, at the expense of all other traders. ## Code Snippet Market orders can use the current block, but limit orders must use the next block: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/order/SwapOrderUtils.sol : SwapOrderUtils.validateOracleBlockNumbers() #1 57 if (orderType == Order.OrderType.MarketSwap) { 58 @> OracleUtils.validateBlockNumberWithinRange( 59 minOracleBlockNumbers, 60 maxOracleBlockNumbers, 61 orderUpdatedAtBlock 62 ); 63 return; 64 } 65 66 if (orderType == Order.OrderType.LimitSwap) { 67 @> if (!minOracleBlockNumbers.areGreaterThan(orderUpdatedAtBlock)) { 68 revert Errors.OracleBlockNumbersAreSmallerThanRequired(minOracleBlockNumbers, orderUpdatedAtBlock); 69 } 70 return; 71 } 72 73 revert Errors.UnsupportedOrderType(); 74: } ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/order/SwapOrderUtils.sol#L57-L74 ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation All orders should follow the same block range rules ## Discussion **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/c5fdc2952a8c982a7c215477124a627699c2009c **IllIllI000** https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/c5fdc2952a8c982a7c215477124a627699c2009c The commit changes from a greater-than block number check to a greater-than-or-equal-to check. `Array.areGreaterThan()` is no longer called anywhere, so this specific issue is resolved. done # Issue H-5: `initialCollateralDeltaAmount` is incorrectly interpreted as a USD value when calculating estimated remaining collateral Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/249 ## Found by Chinmay, IllIllI, bin2chen, ten-on-ten ## Summary Decrease orders have checks to ensure that if collateral is withdrawn, that there is enough left that the liquidation checks will still pass. The code that calculates the remaining collateral incorrectly adds a token amount to a USD value. ## Vulnerability Detail `initialCollateralDeltaAmount` is incorrectly interpreted as a USD value when calculating estimated remaining collateral which means, depending on the token's decimals, the collateral will either be accepted or not accepted, when it shouldn't be. ## Impact If the remaining collateral is over-estimated, the `MIN_COLLATERAL_USD` checks later in the function will pass, and the user will be able decrease their collateral, but then will immediately be liquidatable by liquidation keepers, since liquidation orders don't attempt to change the collateral amount. If the remaining collateral is under-estimated, the user will be incorrectly locked into their position. ## Code Snippet `initialCollateralDeltaAmount()` isn't converted to a USD amount before being added to `estimatedRemainingCollateralUsd`, which is a USD amount: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/position/DecreasePositionUtils.sol : DecreasePositionUtils.decreasePosition() #1 139 // the estimatedRemainingCollateralUsd subtracts the initialCollateralDeltaAmount 140 // since the initialCollateralDeltaAmount will be set to zero, the initialCollateralDeltaAmount 141 // should be added back to the estimatedRemainingCollateralUsd 142 @> estimatedRemainingCollateralUsd += params.order.initialCollateralDeltaAmount().toInt256(); 143 params.order.setInitialCollateralDeltaAmount(0); 144 } 145 146 // if the remaining collateral including position pnl will be below 147 // the min collateral usd value, then close the position 148 // 149 // if the position has sufficient remaining collateral including pnl 150 // then allow the position to be partially closed and the updated 151 // position to remain open 152:@> if ((estimatedRemainingCollateralUsd + cache.estimatedRemainingPnlUsd) < params.contracts.dataStore.getUint(Keys.MIN_COLLATERAL_USD).toInt256()) { ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/position/DecreasePositionUtils.sol#L132-L152 ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Convert to a USD amount before doing the addition ## Discussion **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/f8f2dd694269a8a795a45ed961fb9970e9ce3cc8 **IllIllI000** https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/f8f2dd694269a8a795a45ed961fb9970e9ce3cc8 The commit implements the suggested fix of converting the amount to a USD value, and uses the collateral token's min price as the conversion price. The resulting value is never written back to storage, and is only used as a minimum collateral threshold check, so using this less-favorable-to-the-user price is correct. Looking at 97c826246b06fc977191b8090c970c0ff93cf88a, later changes moved the price lookup to the top of the `decreasePosition()` function, and changes from using `MarketUtils.getMarketPricesForPosition()` to using `MarketUtils.getMarketPrices()`, which means the primary price is now always used, rather than the latest price which may have been a custom or secondary price. According to the comments and fix for #240, there is no longer a custom or secondary price, so the change for this fix looks correct. done # Issue M-1: User can loose funds in case if swapping in DecreaseOrderUtils.processOrder will fail Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/50 ## Found by rvierdiiev ## Summary When user executes decrease order, then he provides `order.minOutputAmount` value, that should protect his from loses. This value is provided with hope that swapping that will take some fees will be executed. But in case if swapping will fail, then this `order.minOutputAmount` value will be smaller then user would like to receive in case when swapping didn't occur. Because of that user can receive less output amount. ## Vulnerability Detail `DecreaseOrderUtils.processOrder` function executed decrease order and [returns order execution result](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/order/DecreaseOrderUtils.sol#L37-L46) which contains information about output tokens and amounts that user should receive. In case if only 1 output token is returned to user, then function will try to swap that amount according to the swap path that user has provided. https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/order/DecreaseOrderUtils.sol#L83-L116 ```solidity try params.contracts.swapHandler.swap( SwapUtils.SwapParams( params.contracts.dataStore, params.contracts.eventEmitter, params.contracts.oracle, Bank(payable(order.market())), params.key, result.outputToken, result.outputAmount, params.swapPathMarkets, 0, order.receiver(), order.uiFeeReceiver(), order.shouldUnwrapNativeToken() ) ) returns (address tokenOut, uint256 swapOutputAmount) { `( params.contracts.oracle, tokenOut, swapOutputAmount, order.minOutputAmount() ); } catch (bytes memory reasonBytes) { (string memory reason, /* bool hasRevertMessage */) = ErrorUtils.getRevertMessage(reasonBytes); _handleSwapError( params.contracts.oracle, order, result, reason, reasonBytes ); } } ``` As you can see in case if swap succeeded, then `_validateOutputAmount` function will be called, that will check slippage. It will check that `swapOutputAmount` is received according to the slippage. But in case if swap will not succeed, then `_handleSwapError` will be called. https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/order/DecreaseOrderUtils.sol#L208-L230 ```solidity null( Oracle oracle, Order.Props memory order, DecreasePositionUtils.DecreasePositionResult memory result, string memory reason, bytes memory reasonBytes ) internal { emit SwapUtils.SwapReverted(reason, reasonBytes); _validateOutputAmount( oracle, result.outputToken, result.outputAmount, order.minOutputAmount() ); MarketToken(payable(order.market())).transferOut( result.outputToken, order.receiver(), result.outputAmount, order.shouldUnwrapNativeToken() ); } ``` As you can see in this case `_validateOutputAmount` function will be called as well, but it will be called with `result.outputAmount` this time, which is amount provided by decreasing of position. Now i will describe the problem. In case if user wants to swap his token, he knows that he needs to pay fees to the market pools and that this swap will eat some amount of output. So in case if `result.outputAmount` is 100$ worth of tokenA, it's fine if user will provide slippage as 3% if he has long swap path, so his slippage is 97$. But in case when swap will fail, then now this slippage of 97$ is incorrect as user didn't do swapping and he should receiev exactly 100$ worth of tokenA. Also i should note here, that it's easy to make swap fail for keeper, it's enough for him to just not provide any asset price, so swap reverts. So keeper can benefit on this slippage issue. ## Impact User can be frontruned to receive less amount in case of swapping error. ## Code Snippet Provided above ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Maybe it's needed to have another slippage param, that should be used in case of no swapping. ## Discussion **xvi10** would classify this as a low, the prices provided must still be within the max oracle age which could be a few minutes, it should be difficult to intentionally cause failures within this range **IllIllI000** It still sounds like a medium to me. I'll let Sherlock decide **xvi10** > Also i should note here, that it's easy to make swap fail for keeper, it's enough for him to just not provide any asset price, so swap reverts. So keeper can benefit on this slippage issue. keepers do not benefit from failed swaps, but okay with me to let Sherlock decide for this one **hrishibhat** Given that there is a loss of funds for the user in the unlikely case of swaps failing, considering this issue a valid medium **rvierdiyev** Escalate for 10 USDC I don't think that #124 is duplicate of this issue. I think that this report and #124 describe different things. After reading #124 i didn't feel that it's same as this report, because here i describe error case of swapping. While #124 is talking about swapping to different token. I believe that these 2 should be separate issues. **sherlock-admin** > Escalate for 10 USDC > I don't think that #124 is duplicate of this issue. > > I think that this report and #124 describe different things. After reading #124 i didn't feel that it's same as this report, because here i describe error case of swapping. While #124 is talking about swapping to different token. > > I believe that these 2 should be separate issues. You've created a valid escalation for 10 USDC! To remove the escalation from consideration: Delete your comment. You may delete or edit your escalation comment anytime before the 48-hour escalation window closes. After that, the escalation becomes final. **IllIllI000** Agree with the escalation - #124 is Invalid, and this is a solo Medium **hrishibhat** Result: Medium Unique #124 is not a duplicate of this issue **sherlock-admin** Escalations have been resolved successfully! Escalation status: - [rvierdiyev](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/50/#issuecomment-1600308766): accepted # Issue M-2: MarketUtils.getFundingAmountPerSizeDelta() has a rounding logical error. Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/164 ## Found by chaduke ## Summary ``MarketUtils.getFundingAmountPerSizeDelta()`` has a rounding logical error. The main problem is the divisor always use a roundupDivision regardless of the input ``roundUp`` rounding mode. Actually the correct use should be: the divisor should use the opposite of ``roundup`` to achieve the same logic of rounding. ## Vulnerability Detail ``MarketUtils.getFundingAmountPerSizeDelta()`` is used to calculate the ``FundingAmountPerSizeDelta`` with a roundup input mode parameter. [https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L1126-L1136](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L1126-L1136) This function is used for example by the IncreaseLimit order via flow ``OrderHandler.executeOrder() -> _executeOrder() -> OrderUtils.executeOrder() -> processOrder() -> IncreaseOrderUtils.processOrder() -> IncreasePositionUtils.increasePosition() -> PositionUtils.updateFundingAndBorrowingState() -> MarketUtils.updateFundingAmoutPerSize() -> getFundingAmountPerSizeDelta()``. However, the main problem is the divisor always use a roundupDivision regardless of the input ``roundUp`` rounding mode. Actually the correct use should be: the divisor should use the opposite of ``roundup`` to achieve the same logic of rounding. My POC code confirms my finding: given fundingAmount = 2e15, openInterest = 1e15+1, and roundup = true, the correct answer should be: 1999999999999998000000000000001999999999999999. However, the implementation returns the wrong solution of : 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. The reason is that the divisor uses a roundup and gets a divisor of 2, as a result, the final result is actually rounded down rather than rounding up! ```javascript function testGetFundingAmountPerSizeDelta() public{ uint result = MarketUtils.getFundingAmountPerSizeDelta(2e15, 1e15+1, true); console2.log("result: %d", result); uint256 correctResult = 2e15 * 1e15 * 1e30 + 1e15; // this is a real round up correctResult = correctResult/(1e15+1); console2.log("correctResult: %d", correctResult); assertTrue(result == 1e15 * 1e30); } ``` ## Impact MarketUtils.getFundingAmountPerSizeDelta() has a rounding logical error, sometimes, when roundup = true, the result, instead of rounding up, it becomes a rounding down! ## Code Snippet ## Tool used VScode Manual Review ## Recommendation Change the rounding mode of the divisor to the opposite of the input ``roundup`` mode. Or, the solution can be just as follows: ```diff function getFundingAmountPerSizeDelta( uint256 fundingAmount, uint256 openInterest, bool roundUp ) internal pure returns (uint256) { if (fundingAmount == 0 || openInterest == 0) { return 0; } // how many units in openInterest - uint256 divisor = Calc.roundUpDivision(openInterest, Precision.FLOAT_PRECISION_SQRT); - return Precision.toFactor(fundingAmount, divisor, roundUp); + return Precision.toFactor(fundingAmount*Precision.FLOAT_PRECISION_SQRT, openInterest, roundUp } ``` ## Discussion **xvi10** would classify this as a low since the impact should be very small **IllIllI000** a fix was done for this one, so I don't think this can be low: https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/f8cdb4df7bba9718fe16f3ab78ebd1c9cd0b2bc6 **xvi10** we will fix valid low issues if it can improve the accuracy of calculations, even if the issue may not lead to a significant difference was referencing this for the criteria, "Medium: There is a viable scenario (even if unlikely) that could cause the protocol to enter a state where a material amount of funds can be lost. The attack path is possible with assumptions that either mimic on-chain conditions or reflect conditions that have a reasonable chance of becoming true in the future." the rounding issues need to lead to a material impact to be considered for a medium? **IllIllI000** won't this lead to funding miscalculations for every second, for every user, and become larger as the funding amounts grow? **xvi10** that's true, have updated the issue to confirmed **IllIllI000** @xvi10 Also, if the precision loss is enough to make you want to add a fix, I would say it should be medium - let me know if you intend to fix any of the other precision loss submissions **xvi10** not sure i agree with that since it doesn't seem to match the criteria in https://docs.sherlock.xyz/audits/judging/judging but will notify and let Sherlock decide the MarketUtils.getFundingFeeAmount was also updated, not due to precision but to avoid the risk of overflow, it was mentioned as a precision issue in: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/193 **hrishibhat** Considering this issue as valid medium based on the following comment which the sponsor agrees too. > won't this lead to funding miscalculations for every second, for every user, and become larger as the funding amounts grow? **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/pull/155/commits/f8cdb4df7bba9718fe16f3ab78ebd1c9cd0b2bc6 # Issue M-3: PositionUtils.validatePosition() uses ``isIncrease`` instead of ``false`` when calling isPositionLiquidatable(), making it not work properly for the case of ``isIncrease = true``. Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/180 ## Found by chaduke ## Summary ``PositionUtils.validatePosition()`` uses ``isIncrease`` instead of ``false`` when calling isPositionLiquidatable(), making it not work properly for the case of ``isIncrease = true``. The main problem is that when calling ``isPositionLiquidatable()``, we should always consider decreasing the position since we are proposing a liquidation trade (which is a decrease in position). Therefore, it should not use ``isIncrease`` for the input parameter for ``isPositionLiquidatable()``. We should always use ``false`` instead. ## Vulnerability Detail ``PositionUtils.validatePosition()`` is called to validate whether a position is valid in both collateral size and position size, and in addition, to check if the position is liquidable: [https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/position/PositionUtils.sol#L261-L296](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/position/PositionUtils.sol#L261-L296) It calls function ``isPositionLiquidatable()`` to check if a position is liquidable. However, it passes the ``isIncrease`` to function ``isPositionLiquidatable()`` as an argument. Actually, the ``false`` value should always be used for calling function ``isPositionLiquidatable()`` since a liquidation is always a decrease position operation. A position is liquidable or not has nothing to do with exiting trade operations and only depend on the parameters of the position per se. Current implementation has a problem for an increase order: Given a Increase order, for example, increase a position by $200, when ``PositionUtils.validatePosition()`` is called, which is after the position has been increased, we should not consider another $200 increase in ``isPositionLiquidatable()`` again as part of the price impact calculation. This is double-accouting for price impact calculation, one during the position increasing process, and another in the position validation process. On the other hand, if we use ``false`` here, then we are considering a decrease order (since a liquidation is a decrease order) and evaluate the hypothetical price impact if the position will be liquidated. [https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/position/PositionUtils.sol#L304-L412](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/position/PositionUtils.sol#L304-L412) Our POC code confirms my finding: intially, we don't have any positions, after executing a LimitIncrease order, the priceImpactUsd is evaluaed as follows (notice initialDiffUsd = 0): >PositionPricingUtils.getPriceImpactUsd started... > openInterestParams.longOpenInterest: 0 > openInterestParams.shortOpenInterest: 0 > initialDiffUsd: 0 > nextDiffUsd: 1123456700000000000000000000000 > positiveImpactFactor: 50000000000000000000000 > negativeImpactFactor: 100000000000000000000000 > positiveImpactUsd: 0 > negativeImpactUsd: 63107747838744499100000 > deltaDiffUsd: 63107747838744499100000 > priceImpactUsd: -63107747838744499100000 > PositionPricingUtils.getPriceImpactUsd() completed. > Initial priceImpactUsd: -63107747838744499100000 > Capped priceImpactUsd: -63107747838744499100000 Then, during validation, when ``PositionUtils.validatePosition()`` is called, the double accouting occurs, notice the ``nextDiffUsd`` is doubled, as if the limitOrder was executed for another time! > PositionPricingUtils.getPriceImpactUsd started... > openInterestParams.longOpenInterest: 1123456700000000000000000000000 > openInterestParams.shortOpenInterest: 0 > initialDiffUsd: 1123456700000000000000000000000 > nextDiffUsd: 2246913400000000000000000000000 > impactFactor: 100000000000000000000000 > impactExponentFactor: 2000000000000000000000000000000 > deltaDiffUsd: 189323243516233497450000 > priceImpactUsd: -189323243516233497450000 > priceImpactUsd: -189323243516233497450000 > adjusted 2: priceImpactUsd: 0 The POC code is as follows, pay attention to the ``testLimit()`` and the execution of ``createLimitIncreaseOrder()``. Please comment out the checks for signature, timestamp and block number for oracle price in the source code to run the testing smoothly without revert. ```javascript // SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT pragma solidity ^0.8.0; import "forge-std/Test.sol"; import "../contracts/role/RoleStore.sol"; import "../contracts/router/ExchangeRouter.sol"; import "../contracts/data/DataStore.sol"; import "../contracts/referral/ReferralStorage.sol"; import "../contracts/token/IWNT.sol"; import "../contracts/token/WNT.sol"; import "../contracts/token/SOLToken.sol"; import "../contracts/token/USDC.sol"; import "../contracts/token/tokenA.sol"; import "../contracts/token/tokenB.sol"; import "../contracts/token/tokenC.sol"; import "../contracts/market/MarketFactory.sol"; import "../contracts/deposit/DepositUtils.sol"; import "../contracts/oracle/OracleUtils.sol"; import "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/introspection/ERC165Checker.sol"; import "../contracts/withdrawal/WithdrawalUtils.sol"; import "../contracts/order/Order.sol"; import "../contracts/order/BaseOrderUtils.sol"; import "../contracts/price/Price.sol"; import "../contracts/utils/Debug.sol"; import "../contracts/position/Position.sol"; import "../contracts/exchange/LiquidationHandler.sol"; import "../contracts/utils/Calc.sol"; import "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/math/SignedMath.sol"; import "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/math/SafeCast.sol"; contract CounterTest is Test, Debug{ using SignedMath for int256; using SafeCast for uint256; WNT _wnt; USDC _usdc; SOLToken _sol; tokenA _tokenA; tokenB _tokenB; tokenC _tokenC; RoleStore _roleStore; Router _router; DataStore _dataStore; EventEmitter _eventEmitter; DepositVault _depositVault; OracleStore _oracleStore; Oracle _oracle; DepositHandler _depositHandler; WithdrawalVault _withdrawalVault; WithdrawalHandler _withdrawalHandler; OrderHandler _orderHandler; SwapHandler _swapHandler; LiquidationHandler _liquidationHandler; ReferralStorage _referralStorage; OrderVault _orderVault; ExchangeRouter _erouter; MarketFactory _marketFactory; Market.Props _marketProps1; Market.Props _marketPropsAB; Market.Props _marketPropsBC; Market.Props _marketPropsCwnt; address depositor1; address depositor2; address depositor3; address uiFeeReceiver = address(333); function testGetFundingAmountPerSizeDelta() public{ uint result = MarketUtils.getFundingAmountPerSizeDelta(2e15, 1e15+1, true); console2.log("result: %d", result); uint256 correctResult = 2e15 * 1e15 * 1e30 + 1e15; // this is a real round up correctResult = correctResult/(1e15+1); console2.log("correctResult: %d", correctResult); assertTrue(result == 1e15 * 1e30); } function setUp() public { _wnt = new WNT(); _usdc = new USDC(); _sol = new SOLToken(); _tokenA = new tokenA(); _tokenB = new tokenB(); _tokenC = new tokenC(); _roleStore = new RoleStore(); _router = new Router(_roleStore); _dataStore = new DataStore(_roleStore); _eventEmitter= new EventEmitter(_roleStore); _depositVault = new DepositVault(_roleStore, _dataStore); _oracleStore = new OracleStore(_roleStore, _eventEmitter); _oracle = new Oracle(_roleStore, _oracleStore); console2.logString("_oracle:"); console2.logAddress(address(_oracle)); _depositHandler = new DepositHandler(_roleStore, _dataStore, _eventEmitter, _depositVault, _oracle); console2.logString("_depositHandler:"); console2.logAddress(address(_depositHandler)); _withdrawalVault = new WithdrawalVault(_roleStore, _dataStore); _withdrawalHandler = new WithdrawalHandler(_roleStore, _dataStore, _eventEmitter, _withdrawalVault, _oracle); _swapHandler = new SwapHandler(_roleStore); _orderVault = new OrderVault(_roleStore, _dataStore); _referralStorage = new ReferralStorage(); _orderHandler = new OrderHandler(_roleStore, _dataStore, _eventEmitter, _orderVault, _oracle, _swapHandler, _referralStorage); _erouter = new ExchangeRouter(_router, _roleStore, _dataStore, _eventEmitter, _depositHandler, _withdrawalHandler, _orderHandler); console2.logString("_erouter:"); console2.logAddress(address(_erouter)); _liquidationHandler = new LiquidationHandler(_roleStore, _dataStore, _eventEmitter, _orderVault, _oracle, _swapHandler, _referralStorage); _referralStorage.setHandler(address(_orderHandler), true); /* set myself as the controller so that I can set the address of WNT (wrapped native token contracdt) */ _roleStore.grantRole(address(this), Role.CONTROLLER); _roleStore.grantRole(address(this), Role.MARKET_KEEPER); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.MAX_SWAP_PATH_LENGTH, 5); // at most 5 markets in the path _dataStore.setAddress(Keys.WNT, address(_wnt)); /* set the token transfer gas limit for wnt as 3200 */ _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_wnt)), 32000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_usdc)), 32000); /* create a market (SQL, WNT, ETH, USDC) */ _marketFactory = new MarketFactory(_roleStore, _dataStore, _eventEmitter); console2.logString("_marketFactory:"); console2.logAddress(address(_marketFactory)); _roleStore.grantRole(address(_marketFactory), Role.CONTROLLER); // to save a market's props _roleStore.grantRole(address(_erouter), Role.CONTROLLER); _roleStore.grantRole(address(_depositHandler), Role.CONTROLLER); _roleStore.grantRole(address(_withdrawalHandler), Role.CONTROLLER); _roleStore.grantRole(address(_swapHandler), Role.CONTROLLER); _roleStore.grantRole(address(_orderHandler), Role.CONTROLLER); _roleStore.grantRole(address(_liquidationHandler), Role.CONTROLLER); _roleStore.grantRole(address(_oracleStore), Role.CONTROLLER); // so it can call EventEmitter _roleStore.grantRole(address(_oracle), Role.CONTROLLER); // so it can call EventEmitter _roleStore.grantRole(address(this), Role.ORDER_KEEPER); _roleStore.grantRole(address(this), Role.LIQUIDATION_KEEPER); _marketProps1 = _marketFactory.createMarket(address(_sol), address(_wnt), address(_usdc), keccak256(abi.encode("sol-wnt-usdc"))); _marketPropsAB = _marketFactory.createMarket(address(0), address(_tokenA), address(_tokenB), keccak256(abi.encode("swap-tokenA-tokenB"))); _marketPropsBC = _marketFactory.createMarket(address(0), address(_tokenB), address(_tokenC), keccak256(abi.encode("swap-tokenB-tokenC"))); _marketPropsCwnt = _marketFactory.createMarket(address(0), address(_tokenC), address(_wnt), keccak256(abi.encode("swap-tokenC-wnt"))); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.minCollateralFactorForOpenInterestMultiplierKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, true), 1e25); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.minCollateralFactorForOpenInterestMultiplierKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, false), 1e25); // see fees for the market _dataStore.setUint(Keys.swapFeeFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken), 0.05e30); // 5% _dataStore.setUint(Keys.SWAP_FEE_RECEIVER_FACTOR, 0.5e30); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.positionFeeFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken), 0.00001234e30); // 2% _dataStore.setUint(Keys.POSITION_FEE_RECEIVER_FACTOR, 0.15e30); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.MAX_UI_FEE_FACTOR, 0.01e30); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.uiFeeFactorKey(uiFeeReceiver), 0.01e30); // only when this is set, one can receive ui fee, so stealing is not easy _dataStore.setInt(Keys.poolAmountAdjustmentKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken), 1); _dataStore.setInt(Keys.poolAmountAdjustmentKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken), 1); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.swapImpactExponentFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken), 10e28); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.swapImpactFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, true), 0.99e30); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.swapImpactFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, false), 0.99e30); // set gas limit to transfer a token _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_sol)), 32000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_wnt)), 32000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_usdc)), 32000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_tokenA)), 32000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_tokenB)), 32000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_tokenC)), 32000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_marketProps1.marketToken)), 32000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_marketPropsAB.marketToken)), 32000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_marketPropsBC.marketToken)), 32000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.tokenTransferGasLimit(address(_marketPropsCwnt.marketToken)), 32000); /* Configure the system parameters/limits here */ _dataStore.setUint(Keys.MAX_CALLBACK_GAS_LIMIT, 10000); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.EXECUTION_GAS_FEE_BASE_AMOUNT, 100); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.MAX_ORACLE_PRICE_AGE, 2 hours); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.MIN_ORACLE_BLOCK_CONFIRMATIONS, 3); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.MIN_COLLATERAL_USD, 1e30); // just require $1 as min collateral usd _dataStore.setUint(Keys.reserveFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, true), 5e29); // 50% _dataStore.setUint(Keys.reserveFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, false), 5e29); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.fundingExponentFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken), 1.1e30); // 2 in 30 decimals like a square, cube, etc _dataStore.setUint(Keys.fundingFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken), 0.0000001e30); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.borrowingFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, true), 0.87e30); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.borrowingFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, false), 0.96e30); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.borrowingExponentFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, true), 2.1e30); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.borrowingExponentFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, false), 2.3e30); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.positionImpactExponentFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken), 2e30); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.positionImpactFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, true), 5e22); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.positionImpactFactorKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, false), 1e23); // set the limit of market tokens _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxPoolAmountKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken), 1000e18); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxPoolAmountKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken), 1000e18); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxPoolAmountKey(_marketPropsAB.marketToken, _marketPropsAB.longToken), 1000e18); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxPoolAmountKey(_marketPropsAB.marketToken, _marketPropsAB.shortToken), 1000e18); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxPoolAmountKey(_marketPropsBC.marketToken, _marketPropsBC.longToken), 1000e18); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxPoolAmountKey(_marketPropsBC.marketToken, _marketPropsBC.shortToken), 1000e18); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxPoolAmountKey(_marketPropsCwnt.marketToken, _marketPropsCwnt.longToken), 1000e18); _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxPoolAmountKey(_marketPropsCwnt.marketToken, _marketPropsCwnt.shortToken), 1000e18); // set max open interest for each market _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxOpenInterestKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, true), 1e39); // 1B $ _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxOpenInterestKey(_marketProps1.marketToken, false), 1e39); // 1B $ _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxPnlFactorKey(Keys.MAX_PNL_FACTOR_FOR_WITHDRAWALS, _marketProps1.marketToken, true), 10**29); // maxPnlFactor = 10% for long _dataStore.setUint(Keys.maxPnlFactorKey(Keys.MAX_PNL_FACTOR_FOR_WITHDRAWALS, _marketProps1.marketToken, false), 10**29); // maxPnlFactor = 10% for short // _dataStore.setBool(Keys.cancelDepositFeatureDisabledKey(address(_depositHandler)), true); _dataStore.setBool(Keys.cancelOrderFeatureDisabledKey(address(_orderHandler), uint256(Order.OrderType.MarketIncrease)), true); addFourSigners(); address(_wnt).call{value: 10000e18}(""); depositor1 = address(0x801); depositor2 = address(0x802); depositor3 = address(0x803); // make sure each depositor has some tokens. _wnt.transfer(depositor1, 1000e18); _wnt.transfer(depositor2, 1000e18); _wnt.transfer(depositor3, 1000e18); _usdc.transfer(depositor1, 1000e18); _usdc.transfer(depositor2, 1000e18); _usdc.transfer(depositor3, 1000e18); _tokenA.transfer(depositor1, 1000e18); _tokenB.transfer(depositor1, 1000e18); _tokenC.transfer(depositor1, 1000e18); printAllTokens(); } error Unauthorized(string); // error Error(string); function testLimit() public{ OracleUtils.SetPricesParams memory priceParams = createSetPricesParams(); vm.roll(block.number+2); // block 3 bytes32 key = createDepositNoSwap(_marketProps1, depositor1, 90e18, true); // create a deposit at block 3 which is within range (2, 6) _depositHandler.executeDeposit(key, priceParams); uint mintedMarketTokens = IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor1); key = createDepositNoSwap(_marketProps1, depositor1, 100e18, false); // create a deposit at block 3 which is within range (2, 6) _depositHandler.executeDeposit(key, priceParams); mintedMarketTokens = IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor1); console2.log("Experiment 1 is completed."); // console2.log("PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP"); key = createMarketSwapOrder(depositor1, address(_wnt), 1e15); // create a deposit at block 3 which is within range (2, 6) _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); console2.log("Experiment 2 is completed."); console2.log("\n\n depositor 1 createMarketIncreaseOrder"); key = createMarketIncreaseOrder(depositor1, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, 20e18, 1001e30, 106000000000000, true); // console2.log("\nExecuting the order..."); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor1, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, true); console2.log("Experiment 3 is completed."); console2.log("\n\n depositor 2 createMarketIncreaseOrder"); key = createMarketIncreaseOrder(depositor2, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, 110e18, 13e30, 101000000000000, false); // 110 usdc as collateral console2.log("\nExecuting the order..."); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor2, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, false); console2.log("Experiment 4 is completed."); console2.log("PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP"); vm.warp(2 days); setIndexTokenPrice(priceParams, 98, 100); // send 20e18 USDC, increase $13.123 in a long position with trigger price 101 key = createLimitIncreaseOrder(depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, 23e18, 1.1234567e30, 101000000000000, true); // collateral token, usdsize, price console2.log("a LimitIncrease order created by depositor3 with key: "); console2.logBytes32(key); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, true); console2.log("\n\nExecuting the order, exiting moment...\n\n"); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, true); console2.log("Experiment 5 is completed.\n"); // depositor3 creates a LimitDecrease order /* setIndexTokenPrice(priceParams, 120, 125); key = createLimitDecreaseOrder(depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, 7e18, 58e30, 120000000000000, 120000000000000, true); // retrieve $50? collateral token, usdsize, acceptible price console2.log("a LimitIncrease order created by depositor3 with key: "); console2.logBytes32(key); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, true); console2.log("\n\nExecuting the order, exiting moment...\n\n"); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); console2.log("Experiment 7 for is completed."); */ } function testMarketDecrease() public{ OracleUtils.SetPricesParams memory priceParams = createSetPricesParams(); vm.roll(block.number+2); // block 3 bytes32 key = createDepositNoSwap(_marketProps1, depositor1, 90e18, true); // create a deposit at block 3 which is within range (2, 6) _depositHandler.executeDeposit(key, priceParams); uint mintedMarketTokens = IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor1); key = createDepositNoSwap(_marketProps1, depositor1, 100e18, false); // create a deposit at block 3 which is within range (2, 6) _depositHandler.executeDeposit(key, priceParams); mintedMarketTokens = IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor1); console2.log("Experiment 1 is completed."); console2.log("\n\n depositor 2 deposit into marketProps1"); key = createDepositNoSwap(_marketProps1, depositor2, 100e18, true); _depositHandler.executeDeposit(key, priceParams); mintedMarketTokens = IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor2); printPoolsAmounts(); console2.log("Experiment 2 is completed."); console2.log("\n\n depositor 1 createMarketIncreaseOrder"); key = createMarketIncreaseOrder(depositor1, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, 20e18, 1e25, 106000000000000, true); // console2.log("\nExecuting the order..."); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor1, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, true); console2.log("Experiment 3 is completed."); console2.log("\n\n depositor 2 createMarketIncreaseOrder"); key = createMarketIncreaseOrder(depositor2, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, 110e18, 1e25, 101000000000000, false); // 110 usdc as collateral console2.log("\nExecuting the order..."); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor2, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, false); console2.log("Experiment 4 is completed."); console2.log("********************************************"); // deposit 2 will execute a marketDecreaseOrder now key = createMarketDecreaseOrder(depositor2, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, 70000000000000, 5e23, false) ; // decrease by 5% console2.log("a market desced order created with key: "); console2.logBytes32(key); console2.log("\nExecuting the order..."); setIndexTokenPrice(priceParams, 60, 65); // we have a profit for a short position _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor2, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, false); console2.log("Experiment 5 is completed."); printAllTokens(); } function testLiquidation() public{ // blockrange (2, 6) OracleUtils.SetPricesParams memory priceParams = createSetPricesParams(); vm.roll(block.number+2); // block 3 bytes32 key = createDepositNoSwap(_marketProps1, depositor1, 90e18, true); // create a deposit at block 3 which is within range (2, 6) _depositHandler.executeDeposit(key, priceParams); uint mintedMarketTokens = IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor1); key = createDepositNoSwap(_marketProps1, depositor1, 100e18, false); // create a deposit at block 3 which is within range (2, 6) _depositHandler.executeDeposit(key, priceParams); mintedMarketTokens = IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor1); console2.log("Experiment 1 is completed."); console2.log("\n\n depositor 2 deposit into marketProps1"); key = createDepositNoSwap(_marketProps1, depositor2, 100e18, true); _depositHandler.executeDeposit(key, priceParams); mintedMarketTokens = IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor2); printPoolsAmounts(); console2.log("Experiment 2 is completed."); console2.log("\n\n depositor 1 createMarketIncreaseOrder"); key = createMarketIncreaseOrder(depositor1, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, 10e18, 1e25, 106000000000000, true); console2.log("\nExecuting the order..."); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor1, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, true); console2.log("Experiment 3 is completed."); console2.log("\n\n depositor 2 createMarketIncreaseOrder"); key = createMarketIncreaseOrder(depositor2, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, 100e18, 1e25, 101000000000000, false); console2.log("\nExecuting the order..."); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor2, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, false); console2.log("Experiment 4 is completed."); // deposit 2 will execute a marketDecreaseOrder now key = createMarketDecreaseOrder(depositor2, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, 106000000000000, 5e23, false) ; // decrease by 5% console2.log("a market desced order created with key: "); console2.logBytes32(key); console2.log("\nExecuting the order..."); setIndexTokenPrice(priceParams, 84, 90); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor2, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, false); console2.log("Experiment 5 is completed."); // depositor3 will execute a LimitIncrease Order now key = createMarketIncreaseOrder(depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, 20e18, 200e30, 101000000000000, true); // collateral token, usdsize, price console2.log("a LimitIncrease order created by depositor3 with key: "); console2.logBytes32(key); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, true); console2.log("\n\nExecuting the order, exiting moment...\n\n"); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, true); console2.log("Experiment 6 is completed.\n"); // depositor3 creates a LimitDecrease order setIndexTokenPrice(priceParams, 120, 125); key = createLimitDecreaseOrder(depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, 7e18, 58e30, 120000000000000, 120000000000000, true); // retrieve $50? collateral token, usdsize, acceptible price console2.log("a LimitIncrease order created by depositor3 with key: "); console2.logBytes32(key); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, true); console2.log("\n\nExecuting the order, exiting moment...\n\n"); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); console2.log("Experiment 7 for is completed."); // depositor3 creates a stopLossDecrease order setIndexTokenPrice(priceParams, 97, 99); key = createStopLossDecrease(depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, 7e18, 58e30, 95000000000000, 92000000000000, true); // retrieve $50? collateral token, usdsize, acceptible price console2.log("a StopLossDecrease order created by depositor3 with key: "); console2.logBytes32(key); // Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, true); console2.log("\n\nExecuting the order, exiting moment...\n\n"); _orderHandler.executeOrder(key, priceParams); console2.log("Experiment 8 is completed."); console2.log("\n\n*************************************************\n\n"); // depositor3 creates a Liquidation order setIndexTokenPrice(priceParams, 75, 75); console2.log("Liquidate a position..."); Position.printPosition(_dataStore, depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, true); _liquidationHandler.executeLiquidation(depositor3, _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, true, priceParams); console2.log("Experiment 9 is completed."); // printPoolsAmounts(); printAllTokens(); } function printAllTokens() startedCompleted("printAllTokens") public { console2.log("\nTokens used in this test:"); console2.log("_wnt: "); console2.logAddress(address(_wnt)); console2.log("_usdc: "); console2.logAddress(address(_usdc)); console2.log("_sol: "); console2.logAddress(address(_sol)); console2.log("_tokenA: "); console2.logAddress(address(_tokenA)); console2.log("_tokenB: "); console2.logAddress(address(_tokenB)); console2.log("_tokenC: "); console2.logAddress(address(_tokenC)); console2.logString("test contract address:"); console2.logAddress(address(this)); console2.log("_marketProps1 market token: "); console2.logAddress(address(_marketProps1.marketToken)); console2.log("_marketPropsAB market token: "); console2.logAddress(address(_marketPropsAB.marketToken)); console2.log("_marketPropsBC market token: "); console2.logAddress(address(_marketPropsBC.marketToken)); console2.log("_marketProps1Cwnt market token: "); console2.logAddress(address(_marketPropsCwnt.marketToken)); console2.log("\n"); } function printMarketTokenAmount() public { console2.log("Market token address: "); console2.logAddress(address(_marketProps1.marketToken)); console2.log("depositor1 market token amount: %d", IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor1)); console2.log("depositor2 market token amount: %d", IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor2)); console2.log("depositor3 market token amount: %d", IERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).balanceOf(depositor3)); } function printLongShortTokens(address account) public { console2.log("balance for "); console2.logAddress(account); console2.log("_wnt balance:", _wnt.balanceOf(account)); console2.log("usdc balance:", _usdc.balanceOf(account)); } function addFourSigners() private { _oracleStore.addSigner(address(901)); _oracleStore.addSigner(address(902)); _oracleStore.addSigner(address(903)); _oracleStore.addSigner(address(904)); } function setIndexTokenPrice(OracleUtils.SetPricesParams memory priceParams, uint256 minP, uint256 maxP) public { uint256 mask1 = ~uint256(type(uint96).max); // (32*3 of 1's) console2.logBytes32(bytes32(mask1)); uint256 minPrice = minP; minPrice = minPrice << 32 | minP; minPrice = minPrice << 32 | minP; uint256 maxPrice = maxP; maxPrice = maxPrice << 32 | maxP; maxPrice = maxPrice << 32 | maxP; priceParams.compactedMinPrices[0] = (priceParams.compactedMinPrices[0] & mask1) | minPrice; priceParams.compactedMaxPrices[0] = (priceParams.compactedMaxPrices[0] & mask1) | maxPrice; } function createSetPricesParams() public returns (OracleUtils.SetPricesParams memory) { uint256 signerInfo = 3; // signer 904 signerInfo = signerInfo << 16 | 2; // signer 903 signerInfo = signerInfo << 16 | 1; // signer 902 signerInfo = signerInfo << 16 | 3; // number of singers // will read out as 902, 903, 904 from the lowest first // the number of tokens, 6 address[] memory tokens = new address[](6); tokens[0] = address(_sol); tokens[1] = address(_wnt); tokens[2] = address(_usdc); tokens[3] = address(_tokenA); tokens[4] = address(_tokenB); tokens[5] = address(_tokenC); // must be equal to the number of tokens 6, 64 for each one, so 64*6. 64*4 for one element, so need two elements uint256[] memory compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers = new uint256[](2); compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers[0] = block.number+1; compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers[0] = compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers[0] << 64 | block.number+1; compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers[0] = compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers[0] << 64 | block.number+1; compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers[0] = compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers[0] << 64 | block.number+1; compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers[1] = block.number+1; compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers[1] = compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers[0] << 64 | block.number+1; // must be equal to the number of tokens 6, 64 for each one, so 64*6. 64*4 for one element, so need two elements uint256[] memory compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers = new uint256[](2); compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers[0] = block.number+5; compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers[0] = compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers[0] << 64 | block.number+5; compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers[0] = compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers[0] << 64 | block.number+5; compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers[0] = compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers[0] << 64 | block.number+5; compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers[1] = block.number+5; compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers[1] = compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers[0] << 64 | block.number+5; // must be equal to the number of tokens 6, 64 for each one, so 64*6. 64*4 for one element, so need two elements uint256[] memory compactedOracleTimestamps = new uint256[](2); compactedOracleTimestamps[0] = 9; compactedOracleTimestamps[0] = compactedOracleTimestamps[0] << 64 | 8; compactedOracleTimestamps[0] = compactedOracleTimestamps[0] << 64 | 7; compactedOracleTimestamps[0] = compactedOracleTimestamps[0] << 64 | 7; compactedOracleTimestamps[1] = 9; compactedOracleTimestamps[1] = compactedOracleTimestamps[0] << 64 | 8; // must be equal to the number of tokens, 8 for each, so 8*6= 48, only need one element uint256[] memory compactedDecimals = new uint256[](1); compactedDecimals[0] = 12; compactedDecimals[0] = compactedDecimals[0] << 8 | 12; compactedDecimals[0] = compactedDecimals[0] << 8 | 12; compactedDecimals[0] = compactedDecimals[0] << 8 | 12; compactedDecimals[0] = compactedDecimals[0] << 8 | 12; compactedDecimals[0] = compactedDecimals[0] << 8 | 12; // three signers, 6 tokens, so we have 3*6 = 18 entries, each entry takes 32 bits, so each 8 entries takes one element, we need 3 elements // price table: // SOL: 100 101 102 // wnt: 200 201 203 // USDC 1 1 1 // tokenA 100 101 102 // tokenB 200 202 204 // tokenC 400 404 408 uint256[] memory compactedMinPrices = new uint256[](3); compactedMinPrices[2] = 408; compactedMinPrices[2] = compactedMinPrices[2] << 32 | 404; compactedMinPrices[1] = 400; compactedMinPrices[1] = compactedMinPrices[1] << 32 | 204; compactedMinPrices[1] = compactedMinPrices[1] << 32 | 202; compactedMinPrices[1] = compactedMinPrices[1] << 32 | 200; compactedMinPrices[1] = compactedMinPrices[1] << 32 | 102; compactedMinPrices[1] = compactedMinPrices[1] << 32 | 101; compactedMinPrices[1] = compactedMinPrices[1] << 32 | 100; compactedMinPrices[1] = compactedMinPrices[1] << 32 | 1; compactedMinPrices[0] = 1; compactedMinPrices[0] = compactedMinPrices[0] << 32 | 1; compactedMinPrices[0] = compactedMinPrices[0] << 32 | 203; compactedMinPrices[0] = compactedMinPrices[0] << 32 | 201; compactedMinPrices[0] = compactedMinPrices[0] << 32 | 200; compactedMinPrices[0] = compactedMinPrices[0] << 32 | 102; compactedMinPrices[0] = compactedMinPrices[0] << 32 | 101; compactedMinPrices[0] = compactedMinPrices[0] << 32 | 100; // three signers, 6 tokens, so we have 3*6 = 18 entries, each entry takes 8 bits, so we just need one element uint256[] memory compactedMinPricesIndexes = new uint256[](1); compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = 1; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 1; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 1; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 1; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 1; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 1; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMinPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; // three signers, 6 tokens, so we have 3*6 = 18 entries, each entry takes 32 bits, so each 8 entries takes one element, we need 3 elements // price table: // SOL: 105 106 107 // wnt: 205 206 208 // USDC 1 1 1 // tokenA 105 106 107 // tokenB 205 207 209 // tokenC 405 409 413 uint256[] memory compactedMaxPrices = new uint256[](3); compactedMaxPrices[2] = 413; compactedMaxPrices[2] = compactedMaxPrices[2] << 32 | 409; compactedMaxPrices[1] = 405; compactedMaxPrices[1] = compactedMaxPrices[1] << 32 | 209; compactedMaxPrices[1] = compactedMaxPrices[1] << 32 | 207; compactedMaxPrices[1] = compactedMaxPrices[1] << 32 | 205; compactedMaxPrices[1] = compactedMaxPrices[1] << 32 | 107; compactedMaxPrices[1] = compactedMaxPrices[1] << 32 | 106; compactedMaxPrices[1] = compactedMaxPrices[1] << 32 | 105; compactedMaxPrices[1] = compactedMaxPrices[1] << 32 | 1; compactedMaxPrices[0] = 1; compactedMaxPrices[0] = compactedMaxPrices[0] << 32 | 1; compactedMaxPrices[0] = compactedMaxPrices[0] << 32 | 208; compactedMaxPrices[0] = compactedMaxPrices[0] << 32 | 206; compactedMaxPrices[0] = compactedMaxPrices[0] << 32 | 205; compactedMaxPrices[0] = compactedMaxPrices[0] << 32 | 107; compactedMaxPrices[0] = compactedMaxPrices[0] << 32 | 106; compactedMaxPrices[0] = compactedMaxPrices[0] << 32 | 105; // three signers, 6 tokens, so we have 3*6 = 18 entries, each entry takes 8 bits, so we just need one element uint256[] memory compactedMaxPricesIndexes = new uint256[](1); compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = 1; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 1; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 1; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 1; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 1; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 1; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 2; compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] = compactedMaxPricesIndexes[0] << 8 | 0; // 3 signers and 6 tokens, so we need 3*6 signatures bytes[] memory signatures = new bytes[](18); for(uint i; i<18; i++){ signatures[i] = abi.encode("SIGNATURE"); } address[] memory priceFeedTokens; OracleUtils.SetPricesParams memory priceParams = OracleUtils.SetPricesParams( signerInfo, tokens, compactedMinOracleBlockNumbers, compactedMaxOracleBlockNumbers, compactedOracleTimestamps, compactedDecimals, compactedMinPrices, compactedMinPricesIndexes, compactedMaxPrices, compactedMaxPricesIndexes, signatures, priceFeedTokens ); return priceParams; } /* * The current index token price (85, 90), a trader sets a trigger price to 100 and then acceptabiel price to 95. * He like to long the index token. * 1. Pick the primary price 90 since we long, so choose the max * 2. Make sure 90 < 100, and pick (90, 100) as the custom price since we long * 3. Choose price 95 since 95 is within the range, and it is the highest acceptible price. Choosing 90 * will be in favor of the trader * */ function createMarketSwapOrder(address account, address inputToken, uint256 inAmount) public returns(bytes32) { address[] memory swapPath = new address[](1); swapPath[0] = _marketProps1.marketToken; // swapPath[0] = _marketPropsAB.marketToken; // swapPath[1] = _marketPropsBC.marketToken; // swapPath[2] = _marketPropsCwnt.marketToken; vm.prank(account); _wnt.transfer(address(_orderVault), 3200); // execution fee BaseOrderUtils.CreateOrderParams memory params; params.addresses.receiver = account; // the account is the receiver params.addresses.callbackContract = address(0); params.addresses.uiFeeReceiver = account; // set myself as the ui receiver // params.addresses.market = marketToken; params.addresses.initialCollateralToken = inputToken; // initial token params.addresses.swapPath = swapPath; // params.numbers.sizeDeltaUsd = sizeDeltaUsd; params.numbers.initialCollateralDeltaAmount = inAmount ; // this is actually useless, will be overidden by real transfer amount vm.prank(account); IERC20(inputToken).transfer(address(_orderVault), inAmount); // this is the real amount // params.numbers.triggerPrice = triggerPrice; // params.numbers.acceptablePrice = acceptablePrice; // I can buy with this price or lower effective spread control params.numbers.executionFee = 3200; params.numbers.callbackGasLimit = 3200; // params.numbers.initialCollateralDeltaAmount = inAmount; params.numbers.minOutputAmount = 100; // use the control the final collateral amount, not for the position size delta, which is indirectly controlled by acceptable price params.orderType = Order.OrderType.MarketSwap; params.decreasePositionSwapType = Order.DecreasePositionSwapType.NoSwap; // params.isLong = isLong; params.shouldUnwrapNativeToken = false; params.referralCode = keccak256(abi.encode("MY REFERRAL")); vm.prank(account); bytes32 key = _erouter.createOrder(params); return key; } function createLiquidationOrder(address account, address marketToken, address collateralToken, uint256 collateralAmount, uint sizeDeltaUsd, uint triggerPrice, uint256 acceptablePrice, bool isLong) public returns(bytes32) { address[] memory swapPath; //address[] memory swapPath = new address[](3); //swapPath[0] = _marketPropsAB.marketToken; //swapPath[1] = _marketPropsBC.marketToken; //swapPath[2] = _marketPropsCwnt.marketToken; vm.prank(account); _wnt.transfer(address(_orderVault), 3200); // execution fee BaseOrderUtils.CreateOrderParams memory params; params.addresses.receiver = account; params.addresses.callbackContract = address(0); params.addresses.uiFeeReceiver = uiFeeReceiver; params.addresses.market = marketToken; // final market params.addresses.initialCollateralToken = collateralToken; // initial token params.addresses.swapPath = swapPath; params.numbers.sizeDeltaUsd = sizeDeltaUsd; // params.numbers.initialCollateralDeltaAmount = ; // this is actually useless, will be overidden by real transfer amount vm.prank(account); IERC20(collateralToken).transfer(address(_orderVault), collateralAmount); // this is the real amount params.numbers.triggerPrice = triggerPrice; params.numbers.acceptablePrice = acceptablePrice; // I can buy with this price or lower effective spread control params.numbers.executionFee = 3200; params.numbers.callbackGasLimit = 3200; params.numbers.minOutputAmount = 100; // use the control the final collateral amount, not for the position size delta, which is indirectly controlled by acceptable price params.orderType = Order.OrderType.Liquidation; params.decreasePositionSwapType = Order.DecreasePositionSwapType.NoSwap; params.isLong = isLong; params.shouldUnwrapNativeToken = false; params.referralCode = keccak256(abi.encode("MY REFERRAL")); vm.prank(account); bytes32 key = _erouter.createOrder(params); return key; } function createStopLossDecrease(address account, address marketToken, address collateralToken, uint256 collateralAmount, uint sizeDeltaUsd, uint triggerPrice, uint256 acceptablePrice, bool isLong) public returns(bytes32) { address[] memory swapPath; //address[] memory swapPath = new address[](3); //swapPath[0] = _marketPropsAB.marketToken; //swapPath[1] = _marketPropsBC.marketToken; //swapPath[2] = _marketPropsCwnt.marketToken; vm.prank(account); _wnt.transfer(address(_orderVault), 3200); // execution fee BaseOrderUtils.CreateOrderParams memory params; params.addresses.receiver = account; params.addresses.callbackContract = address(0); params.addresses.uiFeeReceiver = uiFeeReceiver; params.addresses.market = marketToken; // final market params.addresses.initialCollateralToken = collateralToken; // initial token params.addresses.swapPath = swapPath; params.numbers.sizeDeltaUsd = sizeDeltaUsd; // params.numbers.initialCollateralDeltaAmount = ; // this is actually useless, will be overidden by real transfer amount vm.prank(account); IERC20(collateralToken).transfer(address(_orderVault), collateralAmount); // this is the real amount params.numbers.triggerPrice = triggerPrice; params.numbers.acceptablePrice = acceptablePrice; // I can buy with this price or lower effective spread control params.numbers.executionFee = 3200; params.numbers.callbackGasLimit = 3200; params.numbers.minOutputAmount = 100; // use the control the final collateral amount, not for the position size delta, which is indirectly controlled by acceptable price params.orderType = Order.OrderType.StopLossDecrease; params.decreasePositionSwapType = Order.DecreasePositionSwapType.NoSwap; params.isLong = isLong; params.shouldUnwrapNativeToken = false; params.referralCode = keccak256(abi.encode("MY REFERRAL")); vm.prank(account); bytes32 key = _erouter.createOrder(params); return key; } function createLimitDecreaseOrder(address account, address marketToken, address collateralToken, uint256 collateralAmount, uint sizeDeltaUsd, uint triggerPrice, uint256 acceptablePrice, bool isLong) public returns(bytes32) { address[] memory swapPath; //address[] memory swapPath = new address[](3); //swapPath[0] = _marketPropsAB.marketToken; //swapPath[1] = _marketPropsBC.marketToken; //swapPath[2] = _marketPropsCwnt.marketToken; vm.prank(account); _wnt.transfer(address(_orderVault), 3200); // execution fee BaseOrderUtils.CreateOrderParams memory params; params.addresses.receiver = account; params.addresses.callbackContract = address(0); params.addresses.uiFeeReceiver = uiFeeReceiver; params.addresses.market = marketToken; // final market params.addresses.initialCollateralToken = collateralToken; // initial token params.addresses.swapPath = swapPath; params.numbers.sizeDeltaUsd = sizeDeltaUsd; // params.numbers.initialCollateralDeltaAmount = ; // this is actually useless, will be overidden by real transfer amount vm.prank(account); IERC20(collateralToken).transfer(address(_orderVault), collateralAmount); // this is the real amount params.numbers.triggerPrice = triggerPrice; params.numbers.acceptablePrice = acceptablePrice; // I can buy with this price or lower effective spread control params.numbers.executionFee = 3200; params.numbers.callbackGasLimit = 3200; params.numbers.minOutputAmount = 100; // use the control the final collateral amount, not for the position size delta, which is indirectly controlled by acceptable price params.orderType = Order.OrderType.LimitDecrease; params.decreasePositionSwapType = Order.DecreasePositionSwapType.NoSwap; params.isLong = isLong; params.shouldUnwrapNativeToken = false; params.referralCode = keccak256(abi.encode("MY REFERRAL")); vm.prank(account); bytes32 key = _erouter.createOrder(params); return key; } function createLimitIncreaseOrder(address account, address marketToken, address collateralToken, uint256 collateralAmount, uint sizeDeltaUsd, uint triggerPrice, bool isLong) public returns(bytes32) { address[] memory swapPath; //address[] memory swapPath = new address[](3); //swapPath[0] = _marketPropsAB.marketToken; //swapPath[1] = _marketPropsBC.marketToken; //swapPath[2] = _marketPropsCwnt.marketToken; vm.prank(account); _wnt.transfer(address(_orderVault), 3200); // execution fee BaseOrderUtils.CreateOrderParams memory params; params.addresses.receiver = account; params.addresses.callbackContract = address(0); params.addresses.uiFeeReceiver = uiFeeReceiver; params.addresses.market = marketToken; // final market params.addresses.initialCollateralToken = collateralToken; // initial token params.addresses.swapPath = swapPath; params.numbers.sizeDeltaUsd = sizeDeltaUsd; // params.numbers.initialCollateralDeltaAmount = ; // this is actually useless, will be overidden by real transfer amount vm.prank(account); IERC20(collateralToken).transfer(address(_orderVault), collateralAmount); // this is the real amount params.numbers.triggerPrice = triggerPrice; // used for limit order params.numbers.acceptablePrice = 121000000000000; // I can buy with this price or lower effective spread control params.numbers.executionFee = 3200; params.numbers.callbackGasLimit = 3200; params.numbers.minOutputAmount = 100; // use the control the final collateral amount, not for the position size delta, which is indirectly controlled by acceptable price params.orderType = Order.OrderType.LimitIncrease; params.decreasePositionSwapType = Order.DecreasePositionSwapType.NoSwap; params.isLong = isLong; params.shouldUnwrapNativeToken = false; params.referralCode = keccak256(abi.encode("MY REFERRAL")); vm.prank(account); bytes32 key = _erouter.createOrder(params); return key; } function createMarketDecreaseOrder(address account, address marketToken, address collateralToken, uint256 acceptablePrice, uint256 sizeInUsd, bool isLong) public returns(bytes32) { address[] memory swapPath; //address[] memory swapPath = new address[](3); //swapPath[0] = _marketPropsAB.marketToken; //swapPath[1] = _marketPropsBC.marketToken; //swapPath[2] = _marketPropsCwnt.marketToken; vm.prank(account); _wnt.transfer(address(_orderVault), 3200); // execution fee BaseOrderUtils.CreateOrderParams memory params; params.addresses.receiver = account; params.addresses.callbackContract = address(0); params.addresses.uiFeeReceiver = uiFeeReceiver; params.addresses.market = marketToken; // final market params.addresses.initialCollateralToken = collateralToken; // initial token params.addresses.swapPath = swapPath; params.numbers.sizeDeltaUsd = sizeInUsd; // how much dollar to decrease, will convert into amt of tokens to decrease in long/short based on the execution price params.numbers.initialCollateralDeltaAmount = 13e18; // this is actually useless, will be overidden by real transfer amount // vm.prank(account); // IERC20(collateralToken).transfer(address(_orderVault), collateralAmount); // this is the real amount params.numbers.triggerPrice = 0; params.numbers.acceptablePrice = acceptablePrice; // I can buy with this price or lower effective spread control params.numbers.executionFee = 3200; params.numbers.callbackGasLimit = 3200; params.numbers.minOutputAmount = 10e18; // use the control the final collateral amount, not for the position size delta, which is indirectly controlled by acceptable price params.orderType = Order.OrderType.MarketDecrease; params.decreasePositionSwapType = Order.DecreasePositionSwapType.NoSwap; params.isLong = isLong; params.shouldUnwrapNativeToken = false; params.referralCode = keccak256(abi.encode("MY REFERRAL")); vm.prank(account); bytes32 key = _erouter.createOrder(params); return key; } function createMarketIncreaseOrder(address account, address marketToken, address collateralToken, uint256 collateralAmount, uint sizeDeltaUsd, uint acceptablePrice, bool isLong) public returns(bytes32) { address[] memory swapPath; //address[] memory swapPath = new address[](3); //swapPath[0] = _marketPropsAB.marketToken; //swapPath[1] = _marketPropsBC.marketToken; //swapPath[2] = _marketPropsCwnt.marketToken; vm.prank(account); _wnt.transfer(address(_orderVault), 3200); // execution fee BaseOrderUtils.CreateOrderParams memory params; params.addresses.receiver = account; params.addresses.callbackContract = address(0); params.addresses.uiFeeReceiver = uiFeeReceiver; params.addresses.market = marketToken; // final market params.addresses.initialCollateralToken = collateralToken; // initial token params.addresses.swapPath = swapPath; params.numbers.sizeDeltaUsd = sizeDeltaUsd; // params.numbers.initialCollateralDeltaAmount = ; // this is actually useless, will be overidden by real transfer amount vm.prank(account); IERC20(collateralToken).transfer(address(_orderVault), collateralAmount); // this is the real amount params.numbers.triggerPrice = 0; params.numbers.acceptablePrice = acceptablePrice; // I can buy with this price or lower effective spread control params.numbers.executionFee = 3200; params.numbers.callbackGasLimit = 3200; params.numbers.minOutputAmount = 100; // use the control the final collateral amount, not for the position size delta, which is indirectly controlled by acceptable price params.orderType = Order.OrderType.MarketIncrease; params.decreasePositionSwapType = Order.DecreasePositionSwapType.NoSwap; params.isLong = isLong; params.shouldUnwrapNativeToken = false; params.referralCode = keccak256(abi.encode("MY REFERRAL")); vm.prank(account); bytes32 key = _erouter.createOrder(params); return key; } function createWithdraw(address withdrawor, uint marketTokenAmount) public returns (bytes32) { address[] memory longTokenSwapPath; address[] memory shortTokenSwapPath; console.log("createWithdraw with withdrawor: "); console.logAddress(withdrawor); vm.prank(withdrawor); _wnt.transfer(address(_withdrawalVault), 3200); // execution fee vm.prank(withdrawor); ERC20(_marketProps1.marketToken).transfer(address(_withdrawalVault), marketTokenAmount); WithdrawalUtils.CreateWithdrawalParams memory params = WithdrawalUtils.CreateWithdrawalParams( withdrawor, // receiver address(0), // call back function uiFeeReceiver, // uiFeeReceiver _marketProps1.marketToken, // which market token to withdraw longTokenSwapPath, shortTokenSwapPath, 123, // minLongTokenAmount 134, // minShortTokenAmount false, // shouldUnwrapNativeToken 3200, // execution fee 3200 // callback gas limit ); vm.prank(withdrawor); bytes32 key = _erouter.createWithdrawal(params); return key; } function createDepositNoSwap(Market.Props memory marketProps, address depositor, uint amount, bool isLong) public returns (bytes32){ address[] memory longTokenSwapPath; address[] memory shortTokenSwapPath; console.log("createDeposit with depositor: "); console.logAddress(depositor); vm.prank(depositor); _wnt.transfer(address(_depositVault), 3200); // execution fee if(isLong){ console2.log("000000000000000000"); vm.prank(depositor); IERC20(marketProps.longToken).transfer(address(_depositVault), amount); console2.log("bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb"); } else { console2.log("111111111111111111111111"); console2.log("deposit balance: %d, %d", IERC20(marketProps.shortToken).balanceOf(depositor), amount); vm.prank(depositor); IERC20(marketProps.shortToken).transfer(address(_depositVault), amount); console2.log("qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq"); } DepositUtils.CreateDepositParams memory params = DepositUtils.CreateDepositParams( depositor, address(0), uiFeeReceiver, marketProps.marketToken, marketProps.longToken, marketProps.shortToken, longTokenSwapPath, shortTokenSwapPath, 100000, // minMarketTokens true, 3200, // execution fee 3200 // call back gas limit ); console2.log("aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"); vm.prank(depositor); bytes32 key1 = _erouter.createDeposit(params); return key1; } /* function testCancelDeposit() public { address[] memory longTokenSwapPath; address[] memory shortTokenSwapPath; address(_wnt).call{value: 100e8}(""); _wnt.transfer(address(_depositVault), 1e6); DepositUtils.CreateDepositParams memory params = DepositUtils.CreateDepositParams( msg.sender, address(0), address(111), _marketProps1.marketToken, _marketProps1.longToken, _marketProps1.shortToken, longTokenSwapPath, shortTokenSwapPath, 100000, // minMarketTokens true, 3200, // execution fee 3200 // call back gas limit ); bytes32 key1 = _erouter.createDeposit(params); console.log("WNT balance of address(222) before cancelllation: %s", _wnt.balanceOf(address(222))); console.log("WNT balance of address(this) before cancelllation: %s", _wnt.balanceOf(address(this))); _roleStore.grantRole(address(222), Role.CONTROLLER); // to save a market's props vm.prank(address(222)); _depositHandler.cancelDeposit(key1); console.log("WNT balance of address(222) after cancelllation: %s", _wnt.balanceOf(address(222))); console.log("WNT balance of address(this) after cancelllation: %s", _wnt.balanceOf(address(this))); } */ function testERC165() public{ bool yes = _wnt.supportsInterface(type(IWNT).interfaceId); console2.log("wnt suppports deposit?"); console2.logBool(yes); vm.expectRevert(); yes = IERC165(address(_sol)).supportsInterface(type(IWNT).interfaceId); console2.logBool(yes); if(ERC165Checker.supportsERC165(address(_wnt))){ console2.log("_wnt supports ERC165"); } if(ERC165Checker.supportsERC165(address(_sol))){ console2.log("_sol supports ERC165"); } } function justError() external { // revert Unauthorized("abcdefg"); // 973d02cb // revert("abcdefg"); // 0x08c379a, Error selector // require(false, "abcdefg"); // 0x08ce79a, Error selector assert(3 == 4); // Panic: 0x4e487b71 } function testErrorMessage() public{ try this.justError(){} catch (bytes memory reasonBytes) { (string memory msg, bool ok ) = ErrorUtils.getRevertMessage(reasonBytes); console2.log("Error Message: "); console2.logString(msg); console2.log("error?"); console2.logBool(ok); } } function printAddresses() public{ console2.log("_orderVault:"); console2.logAddress(address(_orderVault)); console2.log("marketToken:"); console2.logAddress(address(_marketProps1.marketToken)); } function printPoolsAmounts() public{ console2.log("\n The summary of pool amounts: "); uint256 amount = MarketUtils.getPoolAmount(_dataStore, _marketProps1, _marketProps1.longToken); console2.log("Market: _marketProps1, token: long/nwt, amount: %d", amount); amount = MarketUtils.getPoolAmount(_dataStore, _marketProps1, _marketProps1.shortToken); console2.log("Market: _marketProps1, token: short/USDC, amount: %d", amount); amount = MarketUtils.getPoolAmount(_dataStore, _marketPropsAB, _marketPropsAB.longToken); console2.log("Market: _marketPropsAB, token: long/A, amount: %d", amount); amount = MarketUtils.getPoolAmount(_dataStore, _marketPropsAB, _marketPropsAB.shortToken); console2.log("Market: _marketPropsAB, token: short/B, amount: %d", amount); amount = MarketUtils.getPoolAmount(_dataStore, _marketPropsBC, _marketPropsBC.longToken); console2.log("Market: _marketPropsBC, token: long/B, amount:%d", amount); amount = MarketUtils.getPoolAmount(_dataStore, _marketPropsBC, _marketPropsBC.shortToken); console2.log("Market: _marketPropsBC, token: short/C, amount: %d", amount); amount = MarketUtils.getPoolAmount(_dataStore, _marketPropsCwnt, _marketPropsCwnt.longToken); console2.log("Market: _marketPropsCwnt, token: long/C, amount: %d", amount); amount = MarketUtils.getPoolAmount(_dataStore, _marketPropsCwnt, _marketPropsCwnt.shortToken); console2.log("Market: _marketPropsCwnt, token: short/wnt, amount: %d", amount); console2.log("\n"); } } ``` ## Impact PositionUtils.validatePosition() uses ``isIncrease`` instead of ``false`` when calling isPositionLiquidatable(), making it not work properly for the case of ``isIncrease = true``. A liquidation should always be considered as a decrease order in terms of evaluating price impact. ## Code Snippet ## Tool used VSCode Manual Review ## Recommendation Pass false always to isPositionLiquidatable(): ```diff function validatePosition( DataStore dataStore, IReferralStorage referralStorage, Position.Props memory position, Market.Props memory market, MarketUtils.MarketPrices memory prices, bool isIncrease, bool shouldValidateMinPositionSize, bool shouldValidateMinCollateralUsd ) public view { if (position.sizeInUsd() == 0 || position.sizeInTokens() == 0) { revert Errors.InvalidPositionSizeValues(position.sizeInUsd(), position.sizeInTokens()); } MarketUtils.validateEnabledMarket(dataStore, market.marketToken); MarketUtils.validateMarketCollateralToken(market, position.collateralToken()); if (shouldValidateMinPositionSize) { uint256 minPositionSizeUsd = dataStore.getUint(Keys.MIN_POSITION_SIZE_USD); if (position.sizeInUsd() < minPositionSizeUsd) { revert Errors.MinPositionSize(position.sizeInUsd(), minPositionSizeUsd); } } if (isPositionLiquidatable( dataStore, referralStorage, position, market, prices, - isIncrease, + false, shouldValidateMinCollateralUsd )) { revert Errors.LiquidatablePosition(); } } ``` ## Discussion **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/pull/155/commits/ac2b1dc0fce1fc73d65859c95eb0ce72d20ff30d the code was updated to check for whether a position is liquidatable after state variables were updated # Issue M-4: short side of getReservedUsd does not work for market that has the same collateral token Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/198 ## Found by 0xGoodess ## Summary short side of getReservedUsd does not work for market that has the same collateral token ## Vulnerability Detail Consider the case of ETH / USD market with both long and short collateral token as ETH. the available amount to be reserved (ETH) would CHANGE with the price of ETH. ```solidity function getReservedUsd( DataStore dataStore, Market.Props memory market, MarketPrices memory prices, bool isLong ) internal view returns (uint256) { uint256 reservedUsd; if (isLong) { // for longs calculate the reserved USD based on the open interest and current indexTokenPrice // this works well for e.g. an ETH / USD market with long collateral token as WETH // the available amount to be reserved would scale with the price of ETH // this also works for e.g. a SOL / USD market with long collateral token as WETH // if the price of SOL increases more than the price of ETH, additional amounts would be // automatically reserved uint256 openInterestInTokens = getOpenInterestInTokens(dataStore, market, isLong); reservedUsd = openInterestInTokens * prices.indexTokenPrice.max; } else { // for shorts use the open interest as the reserved USD value // this works well for e.g. an ETH / USD market with short collateral token as USDC // the available amount to be reserved would not change with the price of ETH reservedUsd = getOpenInterest(dataStore, market, isLong); } return reservedUsd; } ``` ## Impact reservedUsd does not work when long and short collateral tokens are the same. ## Code Snippet https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L1415-L1439 ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Consider apply both long and short calculations of reserveUsd with relation to the indexTokenPrice. ## Discussion **IllIllI000** leaning towards invalid, but will let sponsor verify **xvi10** it would not be advisable to use non-stablecoins to back short positions in case a non-stablecoin is used to back short positions, the amount to be reserved may not need to be changed since the reserve ratio should still validate if the total open interest is a reasonable ratio of the pool's USD value **IllIllI000** @xvi10 inadvisable, and the stipulation that open interest be a 'reasonable ratio' seem to indication that this bug is possible, and should therefore remain open - am I misunderstanding what you've said **xvi10** the issue does not seem valid to me and the current contract code seems reasonable, an example: 1. there is $50m worth of ETH in the pool and the reserve factor is set to 0.25 2. a max of $12.5m shorts can be opened 3. when validating the reserve we check that the max short open interest does not exceed this 4. if the price of ETH decreases and is now worth $40m, the validation would be that the max open interest does not exceed $10m the pending pnl of the short positions would increase if the price of ETH decreases, which is a problem with choosing to use a non-stablecoin to back short positions rather than an issue with the validation in that case the cap of trader pnl and ADL could help to reduce the risk of the market becoming insolvent, but it would be better to avoid the situation by not using a non-stablecoin to back short positions **IllIllI000** > which is a problem with choosing to use a non-stablecoin to back short positions rather than an issue with the validation I can see that argument, but you seem to be indicating that users are allowed to do it anyway, and markets becoming insolvent seems like a situation that should be prevented. I'll let Sherlock decide **xvi10** markets have a risk of becoming insolvent, capping trader pnl and ADL helps, reducing the risk of insolvency is left up to the market creator to configure the backing tokens and parameters **hrishibhat** Considering this issue as a valid medium based on the above comments that there is a possibility of market insolvency # Issue M-5: Keepers can steal additional execution fee from users Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/199 ## Found by J4de, KingNFT ## Summary The implementation of ````payExecutionFee()```` didn't take EIP-150 into consideration, a malicious keeper can exploit it to drain out all execution fee users have paid, regardless of the actual execution cost. ## Vulnerability Detail The issue arises on ````L55```` of ````payExecutionFee()````, as it's an ````external```` function, calling````payExecutionFee()```` is subject to EIP-150. Only ````63/64```` gas is passed to the ````GasUtils```` sub-contract(````external library````), and the remaing ````1/64```` gas is reserved in the caller contract which will be refunded to keeper(````msg.sender````) after the execution of the whole transaction. But calculation of ````gasUsed ```` includes this portion of the cost as well. ```diff File: contracts\gas\GasUtils.sol 46: function payExecutionFee( 47: DataStore dataStore, 48: EventEmitter eventEmitter, 49: StrictBank bank, 50: uint256 executionFee, 51: uint256 startingGas, 52: address keeper, 53: address user 54: ) external { // @audit external call is subject to EIP-150 -55: uint256 gasUsed = startingGas - gasleft(); + uint256 gasUsed = startingGas - gasleft() * 64 / 63; // @audit the correct formula 56: uint256 executionFeeForKeeper = adjustGasUsage(dataStore, gasUsed) * tx.gasprice; 57: 58: if (executionFeeForKeeper > executionFee) { 59: executionFeeForKeeper = executionFee; 60: } 61: 62: bank.transferOutNativeToken( 63: keeper, 64: executionFeeForKeeper 65: ); 66: 67: emitKeeperExecutionFee(eventEmitter, keeper, executionFeeForKeeper); 68: 69: uint256 refundFeeAmount = executionFee - executionFeeForKeeper; 70: if (refundFeeAmount == 0) { 71: return; 72: } 73: 74: bank.transferOutNativeToken( 75: user, 76: refundFeeAmount 77: ); 78: 79: emitExecutionFeeRefund(eventEmitter, user, refundFeeAmount); 80: } ``` A malicious keeper can exploit this issue to drain out all execution fee, regardless of the actual execution cost. Let's take ````executeDeposit()```` operation as an example to show how it works: ```solidity File: contracts\exchange\DepositHandler.sol 092: function executeDeposit( 093: bytes32 key, 094: OracleUtils.SetPricesParams calldata oracleParams 095: ) external 096: globalNonReentrant 097: onlyOrderKeeper 098: withOraclePrices(oracle, dataStore, eventEmitter, oracleParams) 099: { 100: uint256 startingGas = gasleft(); 101: 102: try this._executeDeposit( 103: key, 104: oracleParams, 105: msg.sender 106: ) { 107: } catch (bytes memory reasonBytes) { ... 113: } 114: } File: contracts\exchange\DepositHandler.sol 141: function _executeDeposit( 142: bytes32 key, 143: OracleUtils.SetPricesParams memory oracleParams, 144: address keeper 145: ) external onlySelf { 146: uint256 startingGas = gasleft(); ... 171: 172: ExecuteDepositUtils.executeDeposit(params); 173: } File: contracts\deposit\ExecuteDepositUtils.sol 096: function executeDeposit(ExecuteDepositParams memory params) external { ... 221: 222: GasUtils.payExecutionFee( 223: params.dataStore, 224: params.eventEmitter, 225: params.depositVault, 226: deposit.executionFee(), 227: params.startingGas, 228: params.keeper, 229: deposit.account() 230: ); 231: } File: contracts\gas\GasUtils.sol 46: function payExecutionFee( 47: DataStore dataStore, 48: EventEmitter eventEmitter, 49: StrictBank bank, 50: uint256 executionFee, 51: uint256 startingGas, 52: address keeper, 53: address user 54: ) external { 55: uint256 gasUsed = startingGas - gasleft(); 56: uint256 executionFeeForKeeper = adjustGasUsage(dataStore, gasUsed) * tx.gasprice; 57: 58: if (executionFeeForKeeper > executionFee) { 59: executionFeeForKeeper = executionFee; 60: } 61: 62: bank.transferOutNativeToken( 63: keeper, 64: executionFeeForKeeper 65: ); 66: 67: emitKeeperExecutionFee(eventEmitter, keeper, executionFeeForKeeper); 68: 69: uint256 refundFeeAmount = executionFee - executionFeeForKeeper; 70: if (refundFeeAmount == 0) { 71: return; 72: } 73: 74: bank.transferOutNativeToken( 75: user, 76: refundFeeAmount 77: ); 78: 79: emitExecutionFeeRefund(eventEmitter, user, refundFeeAmount); 80: } File: contracts\gas\GasUtils.sol 097: function adjustGasUsage(DataStore dataStore, uint256 gasUsed) internal view returns (uint256) { ... 105: uint256 baseGasLimit = dataStore.getUint(Keys.EXECUTION_GAS_FEE_BASE_AMOUNT); ... 109: uint256 multiplierFactor = dataStore.getUint(Keys.EXECUTION_GAS_FEE_MULTIPLIER_FACTOR); 110: uint256 gasLimit = baseGasLimit + Precision.applyFactor(gasUsed, multiplierFactor); 111: return gasLimit; 112: } ``` To simplify the problem, given ```solidity EXECUTION_GAS_FEE_BASE_AMOUNT = 0 EXECUTION_GAS_FEE_MULTIPLIER_FACTOR = 1 executionFeeUserHasPaid = 200K Gwei tx.gasprice = 1 Gwei actualUsedGas = 100K ``` ````actualUsedGas```` is the gas cost since ````startingGas````(L146 of ````DepositHandler.sol````) but before calling ````payExecutionFee()````(L221 of ````ExecuteDepositUtils.sol````) Let's say, the keeper sets ````tx.gaslimit```` to make ```solidity startingGas = 164K ``` Then the calculation of ````gasUsed````, L55 of ````GasUtils.sol````, would be ```solidity uint256 gasUsed = startingGas - gasleft() = 164K - (164K - 100K) * 63 / 64 = 101K ``` and ```solidity executionFeeForKeeper = 101K * tx.gasprice = 101K * 1 Gwei = 101K Gwei refundFeeForUser = 200K - 101K = 99K Gwei ``` As setting of ````tx.gaslimit```` doesn't affect the actual gas cost of the whole transaction, the excess gas will be refunded to ````msg.sender````. Now, the keeper increases ````tx.gaslimit```` to make ````startingGas = 6500K````, the calculation of ````gasUsed```` would be ```solidity uint256 gasUsed = startingGas - gasleft() = 6500K - (6500K - 100K) * 63 / 64 = 200K ``` and ```solidity executionFeeForKeeper = 200K * tx.gasprice = 200K * 1 Gwei = 200K Gwei refundFeeForUser = 200K - 200K = 0 Gwei ``` We can see the keeper successfully drain out all execution fee, the user gets nothing refunded. ## Impact Keepers can steal additional execution fee from users. ## Code Snippet https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/gas/GasUtils.sol#L55 ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation The description in ````Vulnerability Detail```` section has been simplified. In fact, ````gasleft```` value should be adjusted after each external call during the whole call stack, not just in ````payExecutionFee()````. ## Discussion **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/pull/155/commits/0e784e36c518dd7c1e0f529f49b733014c50e263 **IllIllI000** https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/0e784e36c518dd7c1e0f529f49b733014c50e263 The commit adjusts the starting amount of gas by the number of external calls being made. Each external call was correctly identified and is adjusted. `gasleft() = startGas - startGas * 63 / 64; start' = gasleft() / 63; start' = (startGas - startGas * 63 / 64) / 63; start' = startGas - (startGas * 1 / 64)` so the math works out. However, because the gas passed along is the floor of the division, if the amount of gas passed to the external call is not an exact multiple of 64, the modulo 64 amount of gas won't be refunded properly. partially reviewed # Issue M-6: An Oracle Signer can never be removed even if he becomes malicious Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/205 ## Found by Chinmay ## Summary The call flow of removeOracleSIgner incorrectly compares the hash of ("removeOracleSigner", account) with the hash of ("addOracleSigner", account) for validating that an action is actually initiated. This validation always fails because the hashes can never match. ## Vulnerability Detail The process of removing oracle signers is 2 stage. First function ```signalRemoveOracleSigner``` is called by the TimelockAdmin which stores a time-delayed timestamp corresponding to the keccak256 hash of ("removeOracleSigner", account) - a bytes32 value called actionKey in the pendingActions mapping. Then the Admin needs to call function ```removeOracleSignerAfterSignal``` but this function calls ```_addOracleSignerActionKey``` instead of ```_removeOracleSignerActionKey``` for calculating the bytes32 action key value. Now the actionKey is calculated as keccak256 hash of ("addOracleSigner", account) and this hash is used for checking if this action is actually pending by ensuring its timestamp is not zero inside the ```_validateAction``` function called via ```_validateAndClearAction``` function at Line 122. The hash of ("removeOracleSigner", account) can never match hash of ("addOracleSigner", account) and thus this validation will fail. ```solidity function removeOracleSignerAfterSignal(address account) external onlyTimelockAdmin nonReentrant { bytes32 actionKey = _addOracleSignerActionKey(account); _validateAndClearAction(actionKey, "removeOracleSigner"); oracleStore.removeSigner(account); EventUtils.EventLogData memory eventData; eventData.addressItems.initItems(1); eventData.addressItems.setItem(0, "account", account); eventEmitter.emitEventLog1( "RemoveOracleSigner", actionKey, eventData ); } ``` ## Impact The process of removing an Oracle Signer will always revert and this breaks an important safety measure if a certain oracle signer becomes malicious the TimelockAdmin could do nothing(these functions are meant for this). Hence, important functionality is permanently broken. ## Code Snippet https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/06ccd8c7ee4cadc46e3ac412dcf141eefdced42f/gmx-synthetics/contracts/config/Timelock.sol#L117 ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Replace the call to _addOracleSignerActionKey at Line 118 by call to _removeOracleSignerActionKey ## Discussion **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/pull/155/commits/3ef1161f448941f96c4a7c053391d8b0d63648b6 **IllIllI000** https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/3ef1161f448941f96c4a7c053391d8b0d63648b6 The commit correctly implements the suggested fix of using the correct function (`_removeOracleSignerActionKey()`) for looking up the action key for oracle removal done # Issue M-7: Stop-loss orders do not become marketable orders Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/233 ## Found by Ch\_301, IllIllI, ShadowForce, lemonmon ## Summary Stop-loss orders do not execute if the market has moved since the order was submitted. ## Vulnerability Detail This is the normal behavior for a stop-loss order in financial markets: "A stop-loss order becomes a market order as soon as the stop-loss price is reached. Since the stop loss becomes a market order, execution of the order is guaranteed, but not the price." - https://www.wikihow.com/Set-Up-a-Stop%E2%80%90loss-Order . In the GMX system, stop-loss orders will be unexecutable if the price has moved since the order was submitted to the mempool, because the primary and secondary prices are required to straddle the trigger price. Another way this could happen is if there's an oracle outage, and the oracles come back after the trigger price has been passed. ## Impact Since the stop-loss will revert if a keeper tries to execute it, essentially the order becomes wedged and there will be no stoploss protection. Consider a scenario where the price of token X is $100, and a user who is long is in a profit above $99, but will have a loss at $98, so they set a stoploss with a trigger price of $99 and submit the order to the mempool. By the time the block gets mined 12 seconds later, the primary and secondary prices are $97/$96, and the order becomes unexecutable. ## Code Snippet Stop-loss orders revert if the primary price and secondary price don't straddle the trigger price ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/order/BaseOrderUtils.sol : BaseOrderUtils.ok #1 270 271 if (orderType == Order.OrderType.StopLossDecrease) { 272 uint256 primaryPrice = oracle.getPrimaryPrice(indexToken).pickPrice(shouldUseMaxPrice); 273 uint256 secondaryPrice = oracle.getSecondaryPrice(indexToken).pickPrice(shouldUseMaxPrice); 274 275 // for stop-loss decrease orders: 276 // - long: validate descending price 277 // - short: validate ascending price 278 bool shouldValidateAscendingPrice = !isLong; 279 280 @> bool ok = shouldValidateAscendingPrice ? 281 (primaryPrice <= triggerPrice && triggerPrice <= secondaryPrice) : 282 (primaryPrice >= triggerPrice && triggerPrice >= secondaryPrice); 283 284 if (!ok) { 285 revert Errors.InvalidStopLossOrderPrices(primaryPrice, secondaryPrice, triggerPrice, shouldValidateAscendingPrice); 286: } ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/order/BaseOrderUtils.sol#L270-L286 The revert is allowed to cause the order to fail: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/exchange/OrderHandler.sol : OrderHandler._handleOrderError() #2 263 // the transaction is reverted for InvalidLimitOrderPrices and 264 // InvalidStopLossOrderPrices errors since since the oracle prices 265 // do not fulfill the specified trigger price 266 errorSelector == Errors.InvalidLimitOrderPrices.selector || 267 @> errorSelector == Errors.InvalidStopLossOrderPrices.selector 268 ) { 269 ErrorUtils.revertWithCustomError(reasonBytes); 270: } ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/exchange/OrderHandler.sol#L263-L270 ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Don't revert if both the primary and secondary prices are worse than the trigger price. ## Discussion **xvi10** would classify this as a medium, the oracle should sign a price in the block in which the order was submitted, the likelihood that the price was out of range by then should be small, it is somewhat similar to the chance of submitting a market order and price moves past the acceptable price **Jiaren-tang** Escalate for 10 USDC. the severity should be high. the impact: > Since the stop-loss will revert if a keeper tries to execute it, essentially the order becomes wedged and there will be no stoploss protection basically this is equal to lack of slippage protection! **sherlock-admin** > Escalate for 10 USDC. > > the severity should be high. > > the impact: > > > Since the stop-loss will revert if a keeper tries to execute it, essentially the order becomes wedged and there will be no stoploss protection > > basically this is equal to lack of slippage protection! You've created a valid escalation for 10 USDC! To remove the escalation from consideration: Delete your comment. You may delete or edit your escalation comment anytime before the 48-hour escalation window closes. After that, the escalation becomes final. **IllIllI000** Will leave this up to Sherlock **hrishibhat** Result: Medium Has duplicates In addition to the Sponsor comment, This requires the market to change before the order gets mined or an oracle outage. This is a valid medium. **sherlock-admin** Escalations have been resolved successfully! Escalation status: - [ShadowForce](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/233/#issuecomment-1598701349): rejected **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/pull/155/commits/3243138ebdc6f86e06f5b1fef91312113ef36e20 the code was updated to allow stop-loss orders to be executed if the trigger price was crossed # Issue M-8: Users can get impact pool discounts while also increasing the virtual impact pool skew Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/246 ## Found by IllIllI ## Summary Virtual impacts will remain consistently negative, even if most pools' impacts are balanced ## Vulnerability Detail `applyDeltaToPoolAmount()`/`applyDeltaToVirtualInventoryForPositions()` always modify the virtual impact, even if the virtual impact wasn't consulted ## Impact Imagine a different stablecoin is one of the tokens in each of 5 markets where the other side is Eth, all five markes are part of the same virtual market, and each of the markets' swap imbalance is such that users will get a discount for swapping from Eth into the stablecoin, and the global virtual swap balance for 'stable'/Eth is flat. Users will keep swapping from Eth into the stable, which will push the individual pool towards being flat, but will push the virtual swap inventory for stables to be more and more negative. As soon as one of the five markets becomes flat, any user trying to swap Eth into a stable will suddenly be hit with the huge virtual swap impact imbalance ## Code Snippet `applyDeltaToPoolAmount()` unconditionally updates the virtual inventory for swaps: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol : MarketUtils.applyDeltaToPoolAmount() #1 711 @> applyDeltaToVirtualInventoryForSwaps( 712 dataStore, 713 eventEmitter, 714 market, 715 token, 716 delta 717: ); ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L711-L717 but the actual price impact skips the virtual impact if one of the tokens doesn't have virtual inventory: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/pricing/SwapPricingUtils.sol : SwapPricingUtils.getPriceImpactUsd() #2 119 @> if (!hasVirtualInventoryTokenA || !hasVirtualInventoryTokenB) { 120 return priceImpactUsd; 121: } ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/pricing/SwapPricingUtils.sol#L119-L121 or if the impact was positive: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/pricing/SwapPricingUtils.sol : SwapPricingUtils.getPriceImpactUsd() #3 96 // the virtual price impact calculation is skipped if the price impact 97 // is positive since the action is helping to balance the pool 98 // 99 // in case two virtual pools are unbalanced in a different direction 100 // e.g. pool0 has more WNT than USDC while pool1 has less WNT 101 // than USDT 102 // not skipping the virtual price impact calculation would lead to 103 // a negative price impact for any trade on either pools and would 104 // disincentivise the balancing of pools 105:@> if (priceImpactUsd >= 0) { return priceImpactUsd; } ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/pricing/SwapPricingUtils.sol#L91-L104 Virtual position impacts have the [same](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L883-L896) [issue](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/pricing/PositionPricingUtils.sol#L233) ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Don't adjust the virtual inventory for swaps if the virtual inventory wasn't consulted when calculating the impact. ## Discussion **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/pull/155/commits/1b35173e915a7d3bb85f6c6b6e59a7210897854c virtual swap price impact should be tracked by virtualInventoryForSwapsKey(virtualMarketId, isLongToken) instead of virtualInventoryForSwapsKey(virtualMarketId, token) this would allow similar markets e.g. ETH/USDC, ETH/USDT to be associated together # Issue M-9: Virtual swap balances don't take into account token prices Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/251 ## Found by IllIllI ## Summary Virtual swap balances don't take into the fact that an exchange between the collateral token and the virtual token is taking place, necessitating an exchange rate. ## Vulnerability Detail Virtual position impacts are all based on the virtual token being the same token as the market's index token. With virtual swap impacts, they're not the same token - the market token is a market collateral token, and the virtual token is some other token, which likely has a different price. For example, the README mentions ETH/USDC as ETH/USDT, where USDC is paired with USDT. USDC and USDT sound like they should be equivalent, but looking at the [monthly chart](https://www.huobi.com/en-us/exchange/usdc_usdt) of the exchange rate between the two, it has been between 0.8601 and 1.2000 - a 20% difference at the margins. Further, if one of them were to de-peg, the difference may be even larger and for a much longer period of time. This applies to swaps, as well as to position changes, since those also track virtual swap inventory, since the balance is changing. ## Impact Orders on some markets will get larger/smaller virtual discounts/penalties than they should, as compared to other markets using the same virtual impact pool. In addition to the basic accounting/fee issues associated with the difference, if the price difference is large enough, someone can swap through the market where the impact is smaller due to the exchange rate in order to push the impact more negative, and then simultaneously swap through the other market, where the same amount of funds would result in a larger positive impact than was incurred negatively in the other market, unfairly draining any impact discounts available to legitimate traders. ## Code Snippet The delta being applied is a token amount: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/swap/SwapUtils.sol : SwapUtils._swap() #1 283 MarketUtils.applyDeltaToPoolAmount( 284 params.dataStore, 285 params.eventEmitter, 286 _params.market.marketToken, 287 _params.tokenIn, 288 @> (cache.amountIn + fees.feeAmountForPool).toInt256() 289 ); 290 291 // the poolAmountOut excludes the positive price impact amount 292 // as that is deducted from the swap impact pool instead 293: MarketUtils.applyDeltaToPoolAmount( ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/swap/SwapUtils.sol#L273-L293 and is stored [unaltered](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L701-L721) as the virtual amount: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol : MarketUtils.applyDeltaToVirtualInventoryForSwaps() #2 1471 function applyDeltaToVirtualInventoryForSwaps( 1472 DataStore dataStore, 1473 EventEmitter eventEmitter, 1474 address market, 1475 address token, 1476 int256 delta 1477 ) internal returns (bool, uint256) { 1478 bytes32 marketId = dataStore.getBytes32(Keys.virtualMarketIdKey(market)); 1479 if (marketId == bytes32(0)) { 1480 return (false, 0); 1481 } 1482 1483 uint256 nextValue = dataStore.applyBoundedDeltaToUint( 1484 Keys.virtualInventoryForSwapsKey(marketId, token), 1485 @> delta 1486 ); 1487 1488 MarketEventUtils.emitVirtualSwapInventoryUpdated(eventEmitter, market, token, marketId, delta, nextValue); 1489 1490 return (true, nextValue); 1491: } ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L1471-L1491 The same is true for [deposits](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/deposit/ExecuteDepositUtils.sol#L318-L338), [decreases](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L701-L721), [increases](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L701-L721), and [withdrawals](https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/withdrawal/WithdrawalUtils.sol#L331-L351). ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Use oracle prices and convert the collateral token to the specific virtual token ## Discussion **xvi10** added a note in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/3f17dd59b482e202b52652f8191581ca3827b18e **IllIllI000** https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/commit/3f17dd59b482e202b52652f8191581ca3827b18e The commit does not fix the issue, and instead acknowledges it via code comments, explaining the issue and its potential negative effects, and says that a patch may be applied at a later time if the issue ever manifests and needs to be addressed. done # Issue M-10: Virtual swap impacts can be bypassed by swapping through markets where only one of the collateral tokens has virtual inventory Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/257 ## Found by IllIllI ## Summary Virtual swap impacts can be bypassed by swapping through markets where only one of the collateral tokens has virtual inventory ## Vulnerability Detail The code that calculates price impacts related to swapping, skips the application of virtual impacts if one of the tokens doesn't have a virtual token set ## Impact If the virtual swap amount for a particular token is very large, and a large swap through that market would cause the balance to drop a lot, causing the trade to have a large negative impact, a user can split their large order into multiple smaller orders, and route them through other markets where there is no virtual token for one of the pools, and avoid the fees (assuming those pools have non-virtual imbalances that favor such a trade). ## Code Snippet Virtual impacts are completely skipped if one of the tokens doesn't have a virtual version: ```solidity // File: gmx-synthetics/contracts/pricing/SwapPricingUtils.sol : SwapPricingUtils.getPriceImpactUsd() #1 113 (bool hasVirtualInventoryTokenB, uint256 virtualPoolAmountForTokenB) = MarketUtils.getVirtualInventoryForSwaps( 114 params.dataStore, 115 params.market.marketToken, 116 params.tokenB 117 ); 118 119 if (!hasVirtualInventoryTokenA || !hasVirtualInventoryTokenB) { 120 @> return priceImpactUsd; 121: } ``` https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx/blob/main/gmx-synthetics/contracts/pricing/SwapPricingUtils.sol#L113-L121 ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Use the non-virtual token's inventory as the standin for the missing virtual inventory token ## Discussion **xvi10** fixed in https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/pull/155/commits/1b35173e915a7d3bb85f6c6b6e59a7210897854c virtual swap price impact should be tracked by virtualInventoryForSwapsKey(virtualMarketId, isLongToken) instead of virtualInventoryForSwapsKey(virtualMarketId, token) this would allow similar markets e.g. ETH/USDC, ETH/USDT to be associated together # Issue M-11: Calc.boundedAdd used intitally but later regular subtraction used Source: https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2023-04-gmx-judging/issues/269 ## Found by stent ## Summary In MarketDecrease order flow the funding amount per size calculation uses `Calc.boundedAdd` but further down the call path there is a calculation that does not use `Calc.boundedSubtract` but rather a regular `-`, which could cause overflow errors. ## Vulnerability Detail In `MarketUtils.getNextFundingAmountPerSize` the funding amount per size variables in the `GetNextFundingAmountPerSizeResult` variable are calculated using `Calc.boundedAdd(a,b)`. If the inputs to the function are `(type(int256).min+10,-12)`, for example, then the value returned will be `type(int256).min` i.e. it will not cause an arithmetic overflow, like it would if the values were just added normally with `+`. Further down the call path of MarketDecrease in `MarketUtils.getFundingFeeAmount` the funding amount is negated, and negating `type(int256).min` results in an arithmetic overflow. If the point of defending overflow of the funding amount per size variables was to allow execution to pass without failure then all calculations involving the funding amount per size variables should use `Calc.boundedAdd` or `Calc.boundedSub`. ## Impact MarketDecrease orders that would be expected to pass would fail, causing them to be cancelled. ## Code Snippet ```solidity // contract & func: MarketUtils.getNextFundingAmountPerSize result.fundingAmountPerSize_LongCollateral_LongPosition = Calc.boundedAdd( result.fundingAmountPerSize_LongCollateral_LongPosition, cache.fps.fundingAmountPerSizeDelta_LongCollateral_LongPosition.toInt256() ); ``` https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/blob/a2e331f6d0a3b59aaac5ead975b206840369a723/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L1074 ```solidity // contract: Calc function boundedAdd(int256 a, int256 b) internal pure returns (int256) { // if either a or b is zero or if the signs are different there should not be any overflows if (a == 0 || b == 0 || (a < 0 && b > 0) || (a > 0 && b < 0)) { return a + b; } // if adding `b` to `a` would result in a value less than the min int256 value // then return the min int256 value if (a < 0 && b <= type(int256).min - a) { return type(int256).min; } // if adding `b` to `a` would result in a value more than the max int256 value // then return the max int256 value if (a > 0 && b >= type(int256).max - a) { return type(int256).max; } return a + b; } ``` https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/blob/a2e331f6d0a3b59aaac5ead975b206840369a723/contracts/utils/Calc.sol#L90 ```solidity // contract: MarketUtils function getFundingFeeAmount( int256 latestFundingAmountPerSize, int256 positionFundingAmountPerSize, uint256 positionSizeInUsd ) internal pure returns (int256) { int256 fundingDiffFactor = (latestFundingAmountPerSize - positionFundingAmountPerSize); ``` https://github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/blob/a2e331f6d0a3b59aaac5ead975b206840369a723/contracts/market/MarketUtils.sol#L1345 ## Tool used Manual Review ## Recommendation Use `Calc.boundedAdd` & `Calc.boundedSub` on all calculations involving addition and subtraction with funding amount per size variables. ## Discussion **IllIllI000** will let sponsor review **xvi10** it seems the market could get bricked if reaching this state, despite attempts at avoiding that, the likelihood of this should be quite small if the market reaches this state, the market may not function correctly, it may be preferable to update the funding fee factors to prevent this state instead of handling this in the contracts, to avoid the complexity of handling this case for this scope the contracts could be updated in the future to properly handle this case

Contests