Cannot distinguish right indexed parameters from contract bytecode - EVM - Ethereum Research


    
    
  
    Ethereum Research
  


    
        
    
      Cannot distinguish right indexed parameters from contract bytecode
    


      
          
            
              
              
                EVM
              
            
            



      

        

            

            
              
                JChoy
                
              

              



              
                  
                    October 29, 2019,  1:18pm
                  
                  

1
              
            
            
              These two codes are example contract sources(below example is Solidity, but Vyper has same issue):

contract A {
    event Transfer(address indexed a, address b, uint256 indexed c);
    
    function transfer() public {
        emit Transfer(address(0x776), address(0x777), 256);
    }
}

contract B {
    event Transfer(address a, address indexed b, uint256 indexed c);
    
    function transfer() public {
        emit Transfer(address(0x777), address(0x776), 256);
    }
}


Above two contracts are different at the place of the indexed parameter. However, they’re compiled bytecodes(with v0.5.11) are same as below(except code hash obviously):

6080604052348015600f57600080fd5b5060a98061001e6000396000f3fe6080604052348015600f57600080fd5b506004361060285760003560e01c80638a4068dd14602d575b600080fd5b60336035565b005b604080516107778152905161010091610776917fddf252ad1be2c89b69c2b068fc378daa952ba7f163c4a11628f55a4df523b3ef9181900360200190a356fea265627a7a72315820${32_byte_code_hash}64736f6c634300050b0032

So, it means those two different events in each contracts emit the same events and we cannot distinguish the orders of parameters without EXACT ABI.

The problem is at the ERCs like ERC20 and ERC721.

At ERC20, the official event format for Transfer is:

event Transfer(address indexed _from, address indexed _to, uint256 _value)


Guess if someone deployed a contract has Transfer as below:

event Transfer(address indexed _from, address _to, uint256 indexed _value)
// or
event Transfer(address _from, address indexed _to, uint256 indexed _value)


Is that code ERC20?

	If so, is there any way to distinguish the parameters from event logs without the code’s ABI?


If not, let’s take a look with ERC721 and CryptoKitties source code.

The official Transfer event at EIP721 is:

event Transfer(address indexed _from, address indexed _to, uint256 indexed _tokenId);


However, the CryptoKitties implementation is:

event Transfer(address from, address to, uint256 tokenId);


Can we call the Cryptokitties ERC721, then?

So the main question is:

"Is there any ways to distinguish the place of the indexed parameters just with bytecode?"

The question about ERCs is incidental curiosity.

Please let me know if I am wrong.

            


            
              

            

            
                

            
              
                hjorthjort
                
              

              



              
                  
                    November 4, 2019,  1:55pm
                  
                  

2
              
            
            
              I’m new to how the Solidity compiler generates Wasm. Could you post the full bytecode generated? I want to have a look at it bby using wasm2wat and read the wasm generated. I’m curious how (and if at all) the indexed keyword is handled.

            


            
              

            

            
                

            
              
                dankrad
                
              

              



              
                  
                    November 5, 2019, 12:14pm
                  
                  

3
              
            
            
              



 JChoy:


Above two contracts are different at the place of the indexed parameter. However, they’re compiled bytecodes(with v0.5.11) are same as below(except code hash obviously)




If you look at the ABI specification, it does seem like the two events you defined in contract A and contract B are exactly the same type, as the indexed and non-indexed parameters are listed separately.





 JChoy:


Can we call the Cryptokitties ERC721, then?




It would appear that it is not binary compatible. In fact the EIP 721 includes a reference to that: “CryptoKitties – Compatible with an earlier version of this standard.”

            


            
              

            

            
                

            
              
                JChoy
                
              

              



              
                  
                    November 15, 2019,  5:13am
                  
                  

4
              
            
            
              Yup

For the contract A : 0x6080604052348015600f57600080fd5b5060a98061001e6000396000f3fe6080604052348015600f57600080fd5b506004361060285760003560e01c80638a4068dd14602d575b600080fd5b60336035565b005b604080516107778152905161010091610776917fddf252ad1be2c89b69c2b068fc378daa952ba7f163c4a11628f55a4df523b3ef9181900360200190a356fea265627a7a72315820f1fb868f6466c739db25d5180d2e3aad5de6229fa9f94201f8ea9fde7bc8624364736f6c634300050b0032

For the contract B: 0x6080604052348015600f57600080fd5b5060a98061001e6000396000f3fe6080604052348015600f57600080fd5b506004361060285760003560e01c80638a4068dd14602d575b600080fd5b60336035565b005b604080516107778152905161010091610776917fddf252ad1be2c89b69c2b068fc378daa952ba7f163c4a11628f55a4df523b3ef9181900360200190a356fea265627a7a72315820183916728e1679f1337e395629f61bc231f1b11e22aa488890af62fd31cb7df264736f6c634300050b0032

            


            
              

            

            
                

            
              
                JChoy
                
              

              



              
                  
                    November 15, 2019,  5:27am
                  
                  

5
              
            
            
              



 dankrad:


If you look at the ABI specification, it does seem like the two events you defined in contract A and contract B are exactly the same type, as the indexed and non-indexed parameters are listed separately.




Yes, the indexed and non-indexed parameters are separated during compile. The problem is, if we parse the event logs of the contract B with contract A’s ABI, that we cannot realize the problem easily.

So, if someone wants to parse random ERC20 events just with the standard ABI, his code does not parse properly with some cases which has different indexed parameters.

I think it is impossible to find out if an anonymous contract(we only know about the bytecode) implements the standard events form.





 dankrad:


It would appear that it is not binary compatible. In fact the EIP 721 includes a reference to that: “CryptoKitties – Compatible with an earlier version of this standard.”




Got it, you’re right!

            


            
              

            

            
                

            
              
                JoyCood
                
              

              



              
                  
                    June 14, 2021,  6:31am
                  
                  

6
              
            
            
              i meet the same issue, did you  fight it out now?

            


            
              

            

            
                
	
        
          Home 
        
      
	
        
          Categories 
        
      
	
        
          FAQ/Guidelines 
        
      
	
          
            Terms of Service 
          
        
	
          
            Privacy Policy 
          
        


  
  Powered by Discourse, best viewed with JavaScript enabled