rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide
- Published
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- Fix
- Fixed in 25.1.1, 23.5.2, 22.0.10
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
- Exploitation: none
- Automatable: yes
- Technical impact: partial
Summary
soroban-sdk is a Rust SDK for Soroban contracts. Prior to versions 22.0.10, 23.5.2, and 25.1.1, the `#[contractimpl]` macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls. `#[contractimpl]` generates code that uses `MyContract::value()` style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function. This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously: First, an `impl Trait for MyContract` block is defined with one or more functions, with `#[contractimpl]` applied. Second, an `impl MyContract` block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without `#[contractimpl]` applied. If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function. The problem is patched in `soroban-sdk-macros` versions 22.0.10, 23.5.2, and 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from `<Type>::func()` to `<Type as Trait>::func()` when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists. Users should upgrade to `soroban-sdk-macros` 22.0.10, 23.5.2, or 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts. If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.
Timeline
- CVE published
- CISA SSVC assessment
Exploitation: none · Automatable: yes · Technical impact: partial
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- stellar rs-soroban-sdk
From 25.0.0 · fixed in 25.1.1; From 23.0.0 · fixed in 23.5.2; fixed in 22.0.10
- soroban-sdk-macroscrates.io
From 25.0.0 · fixed in 25.1.1
- soroban-sdk-macroscrates.io
From 23.0.0 · fixed in 23.5.2
- soroban-sdk-macroscrates.io
fixed in 22.0.10