logo
bg_imgbg_imgbg_imgbg_img
exclamation mark iconReport an issue

If you notice some outdated information please let us know!

close icon
Name
Email
Your message
arrow-left

Loopring V3

86%

Previous versions

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Loopring V3

Final score:86%
Date:07 Oct 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick
PQR Score:86%

PASS

Scoring Appendix

The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.

The blockchain used by this protocol
Ethereum
zkRollup
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.Yes
83%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.25%
10.60%
65%
11.100%
12.50%
13.Yes
14.0%
15.0%
16.100%
95%
17.100%
18.60%
79%
19.70%
20.50%
21.90%
22.100%
Total:86%

Very simply, the audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.

  • Here is my smart contract on the blockchain
  • You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code
  • Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does
  • Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
  • Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, token, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.

Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.

This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Code And Team

100%

This section looks at the code deployed on the Mainnet that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.

1. Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)

Answer: 100%

They are available at website https://docs.loopring.io/en/basics/contracts.html , as indicated in the /Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find
70%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Addresses in mainnet.json, in discord or sub graph, etc
20%
Address found but labeling not clear or easy to find
0%
Executing addresses could not be found

2. Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 20 transactions a day on contract ExchangeV3, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
More than 10 transactions a day
70%
More than 10 transactions a week
40%
More than 10 transactions a month
10%
Less than 10 transactions a month
0%
No activity

3. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Is there a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but also normally test and scripts. Even if the repository was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction, it gets a "Yes". For teams with private repositories, this answer is "No"

Score Guidance:
Yes
There is a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but also normally test and scripts. Even if the repository was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction.
No
For teams with private repositories.

4. Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 100%

At 15 branches and 3,491 commits, it's entirely possible Loopring themselves are looking into a layer 2 solution for navigating their bountiful development history.

This metric checks if the software repository demonstrates a strong steady history. This is normally demonstrated by commits, branches and releases in a software repository. A healthy history demonstrates a history of more than a month (at a minimum).

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches
70%
Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches
50%
Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches
30%
Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches
0%
Less than 2 branches or less than 30 commits

5. Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

For a "Yes" in this question, the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation (LinkedIn, etc). If the team is anonymous, then this question is a "No".

Documentation

83%

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

7. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

The basic software functions are covered in the documentation. Loopring's living, breathing design document is a robust way to organize such documentation and should be commended for the considerable effort put in.

8. Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 100%

Contracts as varied as minting NFTs on Loopring's network and on-chain signatures to simple deposits are covered by this document. There is also in-depth software documentation at https://github.com/Loopring/protocols/blob/master/packages/loopring_v3/circuit/statements.md, as well as API documentation at https://docs.loopring.io/en/REST_APIS.html.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All contracts and functions documented
80%
Only the major functions documented
79 - 1%
Estimate of the level of software documentation
0%
No software documentation

9. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 25%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 25% commenting to code (CtC).

The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
CtC > 100 Useful comments consistently on all code
90 - 70%
CtC > 70 Useful comment on most code
60 - 20%
CtC > 20 Some useful commenting
0%
CtC < 20 No useful commenting

10. Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 60%

There is clear association between the code and the documentation, though it is lacking explicit traceability.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clear explicit traceability between code and documentation at a requirement level for all code
60%
Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability
40%
Documentation lists all the functions and describes their functions
0%
No connection between documentation and code

Testing

65%

11. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 606% testing to code (TtC).

This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However the reviewers best judgement is the final deciding factor.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
TtC > 120% Both unit and system test visible
80%
TtC > 80% Both unit and system test visible
40%
TtC < 80% Some tests visible
0%
No tests obvious

12. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

Answer: 50%

The most recent published code coverage test was from 2017, making this not applicable to V3. Nevertheless, at an astonishing 18,000 lines of test code, it is clear that significant testing has been conducted.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Documented full coverage
99 - 51%
Value of test coverage from documented results
50%
No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a reasonably complete set of tests
30%
Some tests evident but not complete
0%
No test for coverage seen

13. Scripts and instructions to run the tests? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No test dissertation was located.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Detailed test report as described below
70%
GitHub code coverage report visible
0%
No test report evident

15. Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%

Loopring V2 underwent formal verification, but V3 has not yet.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

Loopring V3 was deployed on Ropsten testnet.

Security

95%

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.

17. Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)

Answer: 100%

Two audits are public. The first audit was completed before the code was shipped, the second was completed shortly after, but started beforehand. In these audits all recommendations were acted upon and changed were made.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required
90%
Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required
70%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public
50%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes needed but not implemented
20%
No audit performed
0%
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address not found, (where question 1 is 0%)
Deduct 25% if code is in a private repo and no note from auditors that audit is applicable to deployed code.

18. Is the bug bounty acceptable high? (%)

Answer: 60%

Loopring had a 3 month bug bounty period that has now expired, meaning there is no bug bounty currently offered. The value of the aforementioned Bug Bounty was around 300k for the most critical of bu finds.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Bounty is 10% TVL or at least $1M AND active program (see below)
90%
Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k AND active program
80%
Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k
70%
Bounty is 100k or over AND active program
60%
Bounty is 100k or over
50%
Bounty is 50k or over AND active program
40%
Bounty is 50k or over
20%
Bug bounty program bounty is less than 50k
0%
No bug bounty program offered
An active program means that a third party (such as Immunefi) is actively driving hackers to the site. An inactive program would be static mentions on the docs.

Access Controls

79%

This section covers the documentation of special access controls for a DeFi protocol. The admin access controls are the contracts that allow updating contracts or coefficients in the protocol. Since these contracts can allow the protocol admins to "change the rules", complete disclosure of capabilities is vital for user's transparency. It is explained in this document.

19. Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)

Answer: 70%

Admin control information was found at the bottom of the Loopring website. You can view it at https://loopring.io/#/document/risks_en.md.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find
70%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Access control docs in multiple places and not well labelled
20%
Access control docs in multiple places and not labelled
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

20. Is the information clear and complete (%)

Answer: 50%
  • a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 10% -- Only the upgradeability of the smart wallet contract is described.  - b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% -- Multiple guardian, MultSig, and Controller roles are described.  

Percentage Score Guidance:
All the contracts are immutable -- 100% OR
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% AND
b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% AND
c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30%

21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 90%

The admin control documentation is written in clear language that relates to the users' investment safety. It can be found at https://loopring.io/#/document/risks_en.md.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable
90%
Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software language
30%
Description all in software specific language
0%
No admin control information could be found

22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 100%

A "withdrawal mode" is detailed, and it operates as a pause control function for the AMM. The last test was performed around 2 months ago at https://github.com/Loopring/protocols/blob/master/packages/loopring_v3/test/testExchangeWithdrawalMode.ts.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR Pause control(s) are clearly documented and there is records of at least one test within 3 months
80%
Pause control(s) explained clearly but no evidence of regular tests
40%
Pause controls mentioned with no detail on capability or tests
0%
Pause control not documented or explained

Appendices

 The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.

Email: rex@defisafety.com
Twitter: @defisafety

I started with Ethereum just before the DAO and that was a wonderful education.  It showed the importance of code quality. The second Parity hack also showed the importance of good process.  Here my aviation background offers some value. Aerospace knows how to make reliable code using quality processes.
I was coaxed to go to EthDenver 2018 and there I started SecuEth.org with Bryant and Roman. We created guidelines on good processes for blockchain code development. We got EthFoundation funding to assist in their development Process Quality Reviews are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development. DeFiSafety is my full time gig and we are working on funding vehicles for a permanent staff.

1/ SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
2/ Copyright 2017 Loopring Technology Limited.
3pragma solidity ^0.7.0;
4pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
56import "../aux/access/ITransactionReceiver.sol";
7import "../core/iface/IAgentRegistry.sol";
8import "../lib/ReentrancyGuard.sol";
9import "../lib/TransferUtil.sol";
10import "./libamm/AmmAssetManagement.sol";
11import "./libamm/AmmData.sol";
12import "./libamm/AmmExitRequest.sol";
13import "./libamm/AmmJoinRequest.sol";
14import "./libamm/AmmPoolToken.sol";
15import "./libamm/AmmStatus.sol";
16import "./libamm/AmmTransactionReceiver.sol";
17import "./libamm/AmmWithdrawal.sol";
18import "./PoolToken.sol";
192021/// @title LoopringAmmPool
22contract LoopringAmmPool is
23    PoolToken,
24    IAgent,
25    ITransactionReceiver,
26    ReentrancyGuard
27{
28    using AmmAssetManagement     for AmmData.State;
29    using AmmJoinRequest         for AmmData.State;
30    using AmmExitRequest         for AmmData.State;
31    using AmmPoolToken           for AmmData.State;
32    using AmmStatus              for AmmData.State;
33    using AmmTransactionReceiver for AmmData.State;
34    using AmmWithdrawal          for AmmData.State;
35    using TransferUtil           for address;
3637    event PoolJoinRequested(AmmData.PoolJoin join);
38    event PoolExitRequested(AmmData.PoolExit exit, bool force);
39    event ForcedExitProcessed(address owner, uint96 burnAmount, uint96[] amounts);
40    event Shutdown(uint timestamp);
4142    IAmmController public immutable controller;
43    IAssetManager  public immutable assetManager;
44    bool           public immutable joinsDisabled;
4546    modifier onlyFromExchangeOwner()
47    {
48        require(msg.sender == state.exchangeOwner, "UNAUTHORIZED");
49        _;
50    }
5152    modifier onlyFromAssetManager()
53    {
54        require(msg.sender == address(assetManager), "UNAUTHORIZED");
55        _;
56    }
5758    modifier onlyFromController()
59    {
60        require(msg.sender == address(controller), "UNAUTHORIZED");
61        _;
62    }
6364    modifier onlyWhenOnline()
65    {
66        require(state.isOnline(), "NOT_ONLINE");
67        _;
68    }
6970    modifier onlyWhenOffline()
71    {
72        require(!state.isOnline(), "NOT_OFFLINE");
73        _;
74    }
7576    constructor(
77        IAmmController _controller,
78        IAssetManager  _assetManager,
79        bool           _joinsDisabled
80    )
81    {
82        require(_controller != IAmmController(0), "ZERO_ADDRESS");
83        controller = _controller;
84        assetManager = _assetManager;
85        joinsDisabled = _joinsDisabled;
86    }
8788    function isOnline()
89        public
90        view
91        returns (bool)
92    {
93        return state.isOnline();
94    }
9596    receive() payable external {}
9798    function setupPool(AmmData.PoolConfig calldata config)
99        external
100        nonReentrant
101    {
102        require(state.accountID == 0 || msg.sender == address(controller), "UNAUTHORIZED");
103        state.setupPool(config);
104    }
105106    function enterExitMode(bool enabled)
107        external
108        onlyFromController
109    {
110        require(state.exitMode != enabled, "INVALID_STATE");
111        state.exitMode = enabled;
112    }
113114    // Anyone is able to shut down the pool when requests aren't being processed any more.
115    function shutdown(address exitOwner)
116        external
117        payable
118        onlyWhenOnline
119        nonReentrant
120    {
121        state.shutdownByLP(exitOwner);
122    }
123124    function shutdownByController()
125        external
126        onlyWhenOnline
127        nonReentrant
128        onlyFromController
129    {
130        state.shutdownByController();
131    }
132133    function joinPool(
134        uint96[]     calldata joinAmounts,
135        uint96                mintMinAmount,
136        uint96                fee
137        )
138        external
139        payable
140        onlyWhenOnline
141        nonReentrant
142    {
143        state.joinPool(joinAmounts, mintMinAmount, fee);
144    }
145146    function exitPool(
147        uint96            burnAmount,
148        uint96[] calldata exitMinAmounts
149        )
150        external
151        payable
152        onlyWhenOnline
153        nonReentrant
154    {
155        state.exitPool(burnAmount, exitMinAmounts, false);
156    }
157158    function forceExitPool(
159        uint96            burnAmount,
160        uint96[] calldata exitMinAmounts
161        )
162        external
163        payable
164        onlyWhenOnline
165        nonReentrant
166    {
167        state.exitPool(burnAmount, exitMinAmounts, true);
168    }
169170    function onReceiveTransactions(
171        bytes              calldata txsData,
172        bytes              calldata callbackData
173        )
174        external
175        override
176        onlyWhenOnline
177        onlyFromExchangeOwner
178        // nonReentrant     // Not needed, does not do any external calls
179                            // and can only be called by the exchange owner.
180    {
181        AmmData.Settings memory settings = AmmData.Settings({
182            controller: controller,
183            assetManager: assetManager,
184            joinsDisabled: joinsDisabled
185        });
186        state.onReceiveTransactions(txsData, callbackData, settings);
187    }
188189    function withdrawWhenOffline()
190        external
191        onlyWhenOffline
192        nonReentrant
193    {
194        state.withdrawWhenOffline();
195    }
196197    function transferOut(
198        address to,
199        address token,
200        uint    amount
201        )
202        external
203        nonReentrant
204        onlyFromAssetManager
205    {
206        state.transferOut(to, token, amount);
207    }
208209    function setBalanceL1(
210        address token,
211        uint96  balance
212        )
213        external
214        nonReentrant
215        onlyFromAssetManager
216    {
217        state.balancesL1[token] = balance;
218    }
219220    function getBalanceL1(
221        address token
222        )
223        public
224        view
225        returns (uint96)
226    {
227        return state.balancesL1[token];
228    }
229}

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
24
4930
487
783
3120
187

Comments to Code: 783 / 3120 =  25 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
TypeScript
40
22415
2450
1107
18858
1536
JSON
1
46
0
0
46
0
Python
1
41
4
29
8
3
Total
42
22502
2454
1136
18912
1539

Tests to Code: 18912 / 3120 = 606 %