P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Loopring V3 Process Quality Review
Score: 86%

Overview

This is a Loopring Process Quality Review completed on 07/10/2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by Nick of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 86%, a PASS. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix. For our purposes, a pass is 70%.

Summary of the Process

Very simply, the review looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.
  • Here are my smart contracts on the blockchain
  • Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contracts do
  • Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
  • Here are the audit(s) performed on my code by third party experts
  • Here are the admin controls and strategies

Disclaimer

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.

Chain

This section indicates the blockchains used by this protocol. This report covers all of the blockchains upon which the protocol is deployed.
Chain: Ethereum (+ zkRollup)
Guidance: Ethereum Binance Smart Chain Polygon Avalanche Terra Celo Arbitrum Solana

Code and Team

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. This review will answer the following questions:
1) Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%) 2) Is the code actively being used? (%) 3) Is there a public software repository? (Y/N) 4) Is there a development history visible? (%) 5) Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

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.
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.

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".

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).
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

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
Required questions are;
6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N) 7) Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N) 8) Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%) 9) Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%) 10) Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

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.
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.
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

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding comments to the deployed code such that it comprehensively covers the code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth Software Requirements.

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.
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

How to improve this score:

This score can improve by adding traceability from documentation to code such that it is clear where each outlined function is coded in the source code. For reference, check the SecurEth guidelines on traceability.

Testing

This section looks at the software testing available. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;
11) Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%) 12) Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%) 13) Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N) 14) Report of the results (%) 15) Formal Verification test done (%) 16) Stress Testing environment (%)

11) Is there a Full test suite? (%)

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.
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.
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

How to improve this score:

This score can improved by adding tests that achieve full code coverage. A clear report and scripts in the software repository will guarantee a high score.

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

Answer: Yes

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
No test dissertation was located.
Guidance: 100% Detailed test report as described below 70% GitHub code coverage report visible 0% No test report evident

How to improve this score

Add a report with the results. The test scripts should generate the report or elements of it.

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

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;
17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%) 18) Is the bounty value acceptably high?

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.
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 bounty value acceptably 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.
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

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. The questions this section asks are as follow;
19) Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the admin controls? 20) Is the information clear and complete? 21) Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments? 22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests?

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.
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.
c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 10% -- Only the smart wallet contract has its capabilities for change described.
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%

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above. An example is enclosed.

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.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable 90% Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software l language 30% Description all in software specific language 0% No admin control information could not be found

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above in plain language that investors can understand. An example is enclosed.

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.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR 100% 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

Author Details

The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.
Email : [email protected] 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.

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

1
/ SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
2
/ Copyright 2017 Loopring Technology Limited.
3
pragma solidity ^0.7.0;
4
pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
5
6
import "../aux/access/ITransactionReceiver.sol";
7
import "../core/iface/IAgentRegistry.sol";
8
import "../lib/ReentrancyGuard.sol";
9
import "../lib/TransferUtil.sol";
10
import "./libamm/AmmAssetManagement.sol";
11
import "./libamm/AmmData.sol";
12
import "./libamm/AmmExitRequest.sol";
13
import "./libamm/AmmJoinRequest.sol";
14
import "./libamm/AmmPoolToken.sol";
15
import "./libamm/AmmStatus.sol";
16
import "./libamm/AmmTransactionReceiver.sol";
17
import "./libamm/AmmWithdrawal.sol";
18
import "./PoolToken.sol";
19
20
21
/// @title LoopringAmmPool
22
contract 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;
36
37
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);
41
42
IAmmController public immutable controller;
43
IAssetManager public immutable assetManager;
44
bool public immutable joinsDisabled;
45
46
modifier onlyFromExchangeOwner()
47
{
48
require(msg.sender == state.exchangeOwner, "UNAUTHORIZED");
49
_;
50
}
51
52
modifier onlyFromAssetManager()
53
{
54
require(msg.sender == address(assetManager), "UNAUTHORIZED");
55
_;
56
}
57
58
modifier onlyFromController()
59
{
60
require(msg.sender == address(controller), "UNAUTHORIZED");
61
_;
62
}
63
64
modifier onlyWhenOnline()
65
{
66
require(state.isOnline(), "NOT_ONLINE");
67
_;
68
}
69
70
modifier onlyWhenOffline()
71
{
72
require(!state.isOnline(), "NOT_OFFLINE");
73
_;
74
}
75
76
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
}
87
88
function isOnline()
89
public
90
view
91
returns (bool)
92
{
93
return state.isOnline();
94
}
95
96
receive() payable external {}
97
98
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
}
105
106
function enterExitMode(bool enabled)
107
external
108
onlyFromController
109
{
110
require(state.exitMode != enabled, "INVALID_STATE");
111
state.exitMode = enabled;
112
}
113
114
// 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
}
123
124
function shutdownByController()
125
external
126
onlyWhenOnline
127
nonReentrant
128
onlyFromController
129
{
130
state.shutdownByController();
131
}
132
133
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
}
145
146
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
}
157
158
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
}
169
170
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
}
188
189
function withdrawWhenOffline()
190
external
191
onlyWhenOffline
192
nonReentrant
193
{
194
state.withdrawWhenOffline();
195
}
196
197
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
}
208
209
function setBalanceL1(
210
address token,
211
uint96 balance
212
)
213
external
214
nonReentrant
215
onlyFromAssetManager
216
{
217
state.balancesL1[token] = balance;
218
}
219
220
function getBalanceL1(
221
address token
222
)
223
public
224
view
225
returns (uint96)
226
{
227
return state.balancesL1[token];
228
}
229
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
24
4930
487
783
3120
187
Comments to Code 783/3120 = 25%

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%
Last modified 5d ago