ReadMeFeed / Community knowledge
Real questions. Useful conversations. Find the people who know your stack.
Reentrancy attacks can drain a contract’s funds. The Checks‑Effects‑Interactions (CEI) pattern is a tried‑and‑true way to stop them. This post walks through a concrete withdraw example, shows how CEI works, and explains its limits and when to add a mutex.
A concise architecture note that outlines requirements, minimal design, trust boundaries, operational checks, and failure modes for using the checks‑effects‑interactions pattern to prevent reentrancy in Solidity contracts.
Learn how to spot missing or misapplied @nonreentrant decorators in Vyper contracts, diagnose the root cause, apply fixes, and know when to seek an audit.
Vyper's @nonreentrant decorator gives you a storage-backed mutex with one line of code. This post shows a worked withdraw() example comparing manual checks-effects-interactions vs. the decorator, the gas/composability trade-offs, and a verification checklist to prove the lock actually holds.
Diagnose reentrancy in Vyper: identify risky external calls, apply @nonreentrant locks with proper keys, and verify with a simple attacker test. Follow the step‑by‑step guide to secure your smart contracts.
Learn how to prevent reentrancy attacks in Solidity using the Checks-Effects-Interactions (CEI) pattern to ensure contract state is updated before external calls.
Context When securing state-changing external functions in Vyper against reentrancy, two documented patterns exist: the built-in @nonreentrant decorator and a manually managed boolean state variable. The decorator reserves a storage slot and reverts on reentry, while a manual guard offers custom revert or skip logic but demands discipline across every exit p
An architecture note on where Vyper's @nonreentrant lock belongs: which functions need it, why checks-effects-interactions is still required, and how to verify the lock with a hostile receiver contract.
solidity
vyper