Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: Proofs: DelayedWETH Incident response improvements #453

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

wildmolasses
Copy link

Re: ethereum-optimism/optimism#12172 > ethereum-optimism/optimism#12174

This spec PR modifies the existing DelayedWETH spec to support the design changes outlined in Design Docs: DelayedWETH expansion

Let me know what you think of my decision to modify the DelayedWETH spec in place, rather than break it out into its own md file.

Also, if you have a suggestion on how to represent upgradeability concerns (i.e. I took care on storage slots here; should it be documented here or in FMA?) please let me know.

Copy link
Contributor

@ajsutton ajsutton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will leave final approval to @smartcontracts but generally looks good to me. I'm personally ok with updating this in place since no-one needs to implement the old contract behaviour.

when `delayedWethPaused` is `true`, unless the caller is the `owner()`.
- `DelayedWETH` has a `setDelayedWethPaused(bool)` function that allows the `owner()` address to either pause or unpause
withdrawals and transfers.
- `DelayedWETH` has a `hold()` function that allows the `owner()` address to, for any holder, give itself an allowance and
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should include the arguments for hold here for consistency. I also wonder if there's a better name than hold given it takes the funds, not just holding them. Maybe reallocate? Not sure how much it's worth worrying about this.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably wouldn't bother worrying about it

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agree on the arguments

- `DelayedWETH` has a `hold()` function that allows the `owner()` address to give itself an allowance from any address.
`withdraw(guy,wad)` will not be callable when `SuperchainConfig.paused()` is `true`. Also, `withdraw(guy,wad)` is not callable
when `delayedWethPaused` is `true`, unless the caller is the `owner()`.
- `DelayedWETH` has a `setDelayedWethPaused(bool)` function that allows the `owner()` address to either pause or unpause
Copy link
Contributor

@smartcontracts smartcontracts Nov 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Delayed weth pause should be settable by the guardian instead of the owner

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants