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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
This PR aims to update the message rollback implementation in the
L2ToL2CrossDomainMessenger
to match new practices.Additional Questions
There's a necessity to have a way for
relayExpire
to know that the message not only originated fromL2ToL2CrossDomainMessenger
, but that it also originated withinsendExpire
. This is to avoid someone from expiring arbitrary hashes by callingsendMessage
in theL2ToL2CrossDomainMessenger
and then relaying the message torelayExpire
. A way to do this is by setting thesender
insendExpire
to an impossible account. I chose theL2ToL2CrossDomainMessenger
address itself.I was wondering whether a random account would be better, like
0xdead
. My worry comes because this allows the path where the message created insendExpire
is not sent torelayExpire
but torelayMessage
, which would set thesender
to theL2ToL2CrossDomainMessenger
, and perhaps this could mess with contracts integrating with it.