P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
SushiSwap Process Quality Review v2
Score: 76%

Overview

This is a SushiSwap Process Quality Review completed on the 17th of December, 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by Nicolas Vyncke of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 76%, 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: BSC, Fantom, Polygon, xDai, Avalanche, Arbitrum, Moonriver, Celo
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://dev.sushi.com/sushiswap/contracts, 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:
Activity is well over 100 transactions a day on contract MasterChefV2.sol, 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%
With 318 commits and 11 branches, this is a repository that has a strong 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
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

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 function of the MasterChef V1/V2, Oracle, BentoBox, and Kashi are all outlined in the documentation at https://dev.sushi.com/sushiswap/contracts/masterchefv2.

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

Answer: 80%
Only the major software functions of the MasterChef V1/V2, Oracle, BentoBox, and Kashi are outlined in the documentation at https://dev.sushi.com/sushiswap/contracts/masterchefv2.
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

How to improve this score:

This score can be improved by adding content to the software functions document such that it comprehensively covers the requirements. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document. Using tools that aid traceability detection will help.

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

Answer: 44%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 44% 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: 40%
The software function documentation lists and describes most of the Sushi smart contract functions without providing traceability to its source code.
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: 87%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 87% 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

How to improve this score:

This score can improved by adding tests to fully cover the code. Document what is covered by traceability or test results in the software repository.

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

Answer: 50%
No code coverage found, but there is clearly a robust testing suite within the SushiSwap GitHub repositories.
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 report evident anywhere in the SushiSwap documentation.
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: 100%
SushiSwap has had their MasterChefV2 contract formally verified at https://www.certora.com/pubs/MasterChefV2April2021.pdf.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

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: 70%
SushiSwap has audits performed by PeckShield and Quantstamp. Both were done after the mainnet deployment, and all change recommendations were implemented by the team.
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: 100%
There is an active SushiSwap Bug Bounty with Immunefi that rewards participating users with up to $1,250,000 for the most critical of finds at https://immunefi.com/bounty/sushiswap/.
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: 100%
Governance documentation can easily be found at https://docs.sushi.com/governance/current-governance-model.
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) -- 15% -- Contract are not explicitly labelled as upgradeable or immutable, but it is heavily implied through the governance voting system Q & A at https://docs.sushi.com/faq-1/governance-voting-faq.
b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% -- MultiSig roles are clearly defined and outlined at https://docs.sushi.com/governance/current-governance-model.
c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 15% -- The documentation outlines certain parameters that can be changed in the contracts, but not to what extent at https://docs.sushi.com/faq-1/governance-voting-faq.
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: 30%
Governance and access control information is all in software-specific language, and does not pertain to user investments' safety.
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: 0%
No evidence of Pause Control was found within the SushiSwap documentation or code.
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

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.

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
/// @notice The (older) MasterChef contract gives out a constant number of SUSHI tokens per block.
2
/// It is the only address with minting rights for SUSHI.
3
/// The idea for this MasterChef V2 (MCV2) contract is therefore to be the owner of a dummy token
4
/// that is deposited into the MasterChef V1 (MCV1) contract.
5
/// The allocation point for this pool on MCV1 is the total allocation point for all pools that receive double incentives.
6
contract MasterChefV2 is BoringOwnable, BoringBatchable {
7
using BoringMath for uint256;
8
using BoringMath128 for uint128;
9
using BoringERC20 for IERC20;
10
using SignedSafeMath for int256;
11
12
/// @notice Info of each MCV2 user.
13
/// `amount` LP token amount the user has provided.
14
/// `rewardDebt` The amount of SUSHI entitled to the user.
15
struct UserInfo {
16
uint256 amount;
17
int256 rewardDebt;
18
}
19
20
/// @notice Info of each MCV2 pool.
21
/// `allocPoint` The amount of allocation points assigned to the pool.
22
/// Also known as the amount of SUSHI to distribute per block.
23
struct PoolInfo {
24
uint128 accSushiPerShare;
25
uint64 lastRewardBlock;
26
uint64 allocPoint;
27
}
28
29
/// @notice Address of MCV1 contract.
30
IMasterChef public immutable MASTER_CHEF;
31
/// @notice Address of SUSHI contract.
32
IERC20 public immutable SUSHI;
33
/// @notice The index of MCV2 master pool in MCV1.
34
uint256 public immutable MASTER_PID;
35
// @notice The migrator contract. It has a lot of power. Can only be set through governance (owner).
36
IMigratorChef public migrator;
37
38
/// @notice Info of each MCV2 pool.
39
PoolInfo[] public poolInfo;
40
/// @notice Address of the LP token for each MCV2 pool.
41
IERC20[] public lpToken;
42
/// @notice Address of each `IRewarder` contract in MCV2.
43
IRewarder[] public rewarder;
44
45
/// @notice Info of each user that stakes LP tokens.
46
mapping (uint256 => mapping (address => UserInfo)) public userInfo;
47
/// @dev Total allocation points. Must be the sum of all allocation points in all pools.
48
uint256 public totalAllocPoint;
49
50
uint256 private constant MASTERCHEF_SUSHI_PER_BLOCK = 1e20;
51
uint256 private constant ACC_SUSHI_PRECISION = 1e12;
52
53
event Deposit(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount, address indexed to);
54
event Withdraw(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount, address indexed to);
55
event EmergencyWithdraw(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount, address indexed to);
56
event Harvest(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount);
57
event LogPoolAddition(uint256 indexed pid, uint256 allocPoint, IERC20 indexed lpToken, IRewarder indexed rewarder);
58
event LogSetPool(uint256 indexed pid, uint256 allocPoint, IRewarder indexed rewarder, bool overwrite);
59
event LogUpdatePool(uint256 indexed pid, uint64 lastRewardBlock, uint256 lpSupply, uint256 accSushiPerShare);
60
event LogInit();
61
62
/// @param _MASTER_CHEF The SushiSwap MCV1 contract address.
63
/// @param _sushi The SUSHI token contract address.
64
/// @param _MASTER_PID The pool ID of the dummy token on the base MCV1 contract.
65
constructor(IMasterChef _MASTER_CHEF, IERC20 _sushi, uint256 _MASTER_PID) public {
66
MASTER_CHEF = _MASTER_CHEF;
67
SUSHI = _sushi;
68
MASTER_PID = _MASTER_PID;
69
}
70
71
/// @notice Deposits a dummy token to `MASTER_CHEF` MCV1. This is required because MCV1 holds the minting rights for SUSHI.
72
/// Any balance of transaction sender in `dummyToken` is transferred.
73
/// The allocation point for the pool on MCV1 is the total allocation point for all pools that receive double incentives.
74
/// @param dummyToken The address of the ERC-20 token to deposit into MCV1.
75
function init(IERC20 dummyToken) external {
76
uint256 balance = dummyToken.balanceOf(msg.sender);
77
require(balance != 0, "MasterChefV2: Balance must exceed 0");
78
dummyToken.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), balance);
79
dummyToken.approve(address(MASTER_CHEF), balance);
80
MASTER_CHEF.deposit(MASTER_PID, balance);
81
emit LogInit();
82
}
83
84
/// @notice Returns the number of MCV2 pools.
85
function poolLength() public view returns (uint256 pools) {
86
pools = poolInfo.length;
87
}
88
89
/// @notice Add a new LP to the pool. Can only be called by the owner.
90
/// DO NOT add the same LP token more than once. Rewards will be messed up if you do.
91
/// @param allocPoint AP of the new pool.
92
/// @param _lpToken Address of the LP ERC-20 token.
93
/// @param _rewarder Address of the rewarder delegate.
94
function add(uint256 allocPoint, IERC20 _lpToken, IRewarder _rewarder) public onlyOwner {
95
uint256 lastRewardBlock = block.number;
96
totalAllocPoint = totalAllocPoint.add(allocPoint);
97
lpToken.push(_lpToken);
98
rewarder.push(_rewarder);
99
100
poolInfo.push(PoolInfo({
101
allocPoint: allocPoint.to64(),
102
lastRewardBlock: lastRewardBlock.to64(),
103
accSushiPerShare: 0
104
}));
105
emit LogPoolAddition(lpToken.length.sub(1), allocPoint, _lpToken, _rewarder);
106
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
45
13987
1884
3704
8399
1259
Comments to Code 3704/8399 = 44%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
37
6710
820
283
5607
124
TypeScript
30
2119
343
55
1721
30
Total
67
8829
1163
338
7328
154
Tests to Code 7328/8399 = 87%
Last modified 1mo ago