Skip to content

chore(amm): add defensive check for lp token solvency #78

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
0x-r4bbit wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

chore(amm): add defensive check for lp token solvency #78

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions amm/src/remove.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ pub fn remove_liquidity(
pool_def_data.liquidity_pool_supply > MINIMUM_LIQUIDITY,
"Pool only contains locked liquidity"
);
assert!(
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@3esmit 3esmit May 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The guard is the right place for this invariant. Can we add a direct amm_program unit test that expects Remove amount exceeds user LP balance? The existing integration test only asserts generic failure and would still pass if this explicit AMM-side check regressed back to relying on the downstream token burn.

remove_liquidity_amount <= user_lp_balance,
"Remove amount exceeds user LP balance"
);
let unlocked_liquidity = pool_def_data.liquidity_pool_supply - MINIMUM_LIQUIDITY;
// The remove instruction never sees the LP lock account directly, so we must still refuse any
// request that would burn through the permanent floor even if ownership is already corrupted.
Expand Down
Loading