Skip to main content
Helpful?

IERC20Permit.sol

Code

IERC20Permit.sol

0x6647878949C04E92B5285C8B69eF9f489B0E0622

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
// OpenZeppelin Contracts (last updated v5.0.0) (token/ERC20/extensions/IERC20Permit.sol)

pragma solidity ^0.8.20;

import {MessageHashUtils} from "./MessageHashUtils.sol";
import {ShortStrings, ShortString} from "../ShortStrings.sol";
import {IERC5267} from "../../interfaces/IERC5267.sol";

/**
* @dev Interface of the ERC20 Permit extension allowing approvals to be made via signatures, as defined in
* https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2612[EIP-2612].
*
* Adds the {permit} method, which can be used to change an account's ERC20 allowance (see {IERC20-allowance}) by
* presenting a message signed by the account. By not relying on {IERC20-approve}, the token holder account doesn't
* need to send a transaction, and thus is not required to hold Ether at all.
*
* ==== Security Considerations
*
* There are two important considerations concerning the use of `permit`. The first is that a valid permit signature
* expresses an allowance, and it should not be assumed to convey additional meaning. In particular, it should not be
* considered as an intention to spend the allowance in any specific way. The second is that because permits have
* built-in replay protection and can be submitted by anyone, they can be frontrun. A protocol that uses permits should
* take this into consideration and allow a `permit` call to fail. Combining these two aspects, a pattern that may be
* generally recommended is:
*
* ```solidity
* function doThingWithPermit(..., uint256 value, uint256 deadline, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s) public {
* try token.permit(msg.sender, address(this), value, deadline, v, r, s) {} catch {}
* doThing(..., value);
* }
*
* function doThing(..., uint256 value) public {
* token.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), value);
* ...
* }
* ```
*
* Observe that: 1) `msg.sender` is used as the owner, leaving no ambiguity as to the signer intent, and 2) the use of
* `try/catch` allows the permit to fail and makes the code tolerant to frontrunning. (See also
* {SafeERC20-safeTransferFrom}).
*
* Additionally, note that smart contract wallets (such as Argent or Safe) are not able to produce permit signatures, so
* contracts should have entry points that don't rely on permit.
*/
interface IERC20Permit {
/**
* @dev Sets `value` as the allowance of `spender` over ``owner``'s tokens,
* given ``owner``'s signed approval.
*
* IMPORTANT: The same issues {IERC20-approve} has related to transaction
* ordering also apply here.
*
* Emits an {Approval} event.
*
* Requirements:
*
* - `spender` cannot be the zero address.
* - `deadline` must be a timestamp in the future.
* - `v`, `r` and `s` must be a valid `secp256k1` signature from `owner`
* over the EIP712-formatted function arguments.
* - the signature must use ``owner``'s current nonce (see {nonces}).
*
* For more information on the signature format, see the
* https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2612#specification[relevant EIP
* section].
*
* CAUTION: See Security Considerations above.
*/
function permit(
address owner,
address spender,
uint256 value,
uint256 deadline,
uint8 v,
bytes32 r,
bytes32 s
) external;

/**
* @dev Returns the current nonce for `owner`. This value must be
* included whenever a signature is generated for {permit}.
*
* Every successful call to {permit} increases ``owner``'s nonce by one. This
* prevents a signature from being used multiple times.
*/
function nonces(address owner) external view returns (uint256);

/**
* @dev Returns the domain separator used in the encoding of the signature for {permit}, as defined by {EIP712}.
*/
// solhint-disable-next-line func-name-mixedcase
function DOMAIN_SEPARATOR() external view returns (bytes32);
}
Helpful?