(fix): correctly redact private keys in traces #6995 #7049
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mattsse
approved these changes
Feb 8, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
tysm, this is great, smol nit
pending @klkvr and @DaniPopes
Evalir
approved these changes
Feb 8, 2024
mattsse
approved these changes
Feb 8, 2024
This was referenced Apr 26, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
Fixes issue of private keys not being redacted in traces.
Previously there was a logical error causing inputs to not correctly be redacted.
Closes #6995
Solution
This change should cover all cheatcode cases where a
private keyis passed (directly or through theWalletstruct) or is returned.This includes missing cases:
createWallet(...)getNonce(Wallet)signP256(uint256,bytes32)sign(Wallet,bytes32)I've added a parameterized test to verify all cases (incl. exceptions) and in a way so it is easy to maintain.
To be able to quickly check the proposed fixes I've created a minimal repo: https://github.com/zerosnacks/foundry-pr-6995
PS: dummy data included in the test was generated using the dummy private key of
0x90F79bf6EB2c4f870365E785982E1f101E93b906, one of the Anvil defaults.