-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Implement contract signature verification #238
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or 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
83 changes: 83 additions & 0 deletions
83
src/lib/safe/signature-verification/SignatureVerifierStrategy.ts
This file contains hidden or 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ | ||
import Safe from "@safe-global/protocol-kit"; | ||
import { ethers } from "ethers"; | ||
|
||
const EIP1271_MAGIC_VALUE = | ||
"0x1626ba7e00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"; | ||
|
||
export interface SignatureVerifierStrategy { | ||
verify( | ||
signature: `0x${string}`, | ||
rpcUrl: string, | ||
safeAddress: `0x${string}`, | ||
): Promise<boolean>; | ||
} | ||
|
||
export class SignatureVerifierStrategyFactory { | ||
static getStrategy( | ||
chainId: number, | ||
hashTypedData: `0x${string}`, | ||
): SignatureVerifierStrategy { | ||
switch (chainId) { | ||
case 314: | ||
case 314159: | ||
return new ContractSignatureVerifierStrategy(hashTypedData); | ||
default: | ||
return new SafeSignatureVerifierStrategy(hashTypedData); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
export class SafeSignatureVerifierStrategy | ||
implements SignatureVerifierStrategy | ||
{ | ||
private hashTypedData: `0x${string}`; | ||
constructor(hashTypedData: `0x${string}`) { | ||
this.hashTypedData = hashTypedData; | ||
} | ||
|
||
async verify( | ||
signature: `0x${string}`, | ||
rpcUrl: string, | ||
safeAddress: `0x${string}`, | ||
): Promise<boolean> { | ||
const safe = await Safe.default.init({ | ||
provider: rpcUrl, | ||
safeAddress: safeAddress, | ||
}); | ||
|
||
const protocolKit = await safe.connect({}); | ||
return protocolKit.isValidSignature(this.hashTypedData, signature); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
export class ContractSignatureVerifierStrategy | ||
implements SignatureVerifierStrategy | ||
{ | ||
private hashTypedData: `0x${string}`; | ||
constructor(hashTypedData: `0x${string}`) { | ||
this.hashTypedData = hashTypedData; | ||
} | ||
|
||
async verify( | ||
signature: `0x${string}`, | ||
rpcUrl: string, | ||
safeAddress: `0x${string}`, | ||
): Promise<boolean> { | ||
const provider = new ethers.JsonRpcProvider(rpcUrl); | ||
const iface = new ethers.Interface([ | ||
"function isValidSignature(bytes32 hash, bytes signature) view returns (bytes4)", | ||
]); | ||
const calldata = iface.encodeFunctionData("isValidSignature", [ | ||
this.hashTypedData, | ||
signature, | ||
]); | ||
|
||
try { | ||
const result = await provider.call({ to: safeAddress, data: calldata }); | ||
return result === EIP1271_MAGIC_VALUE; | ||
} catch (error) { | ||
console.error("Error:", error); | ||
return false; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} |
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since choosing the strategy isn't influenced by the hash of the typed data, I feel like it shouldn't be here. It also doesn't necessarily need to be on the constructor if the other fields aren't either. From the viewpoint of the individual classes you can't necessarily say that the hash is a value that you would want to keep across multiple invocations, so the actual call to
verify()
seems like it's lacking this value.It's absolutely fine the way it is, but would probably be something that I'd refactor given I have the time and am working on something that's touching this code :)