Skip to content

Conversation

@Stevengre
Copy link

@Stevengre Stevengre commented Jan 7, 2026

process_withdraw_excess_lamports is missed in spl-token and implemented in token-2022.

@Stevengre Stevengre self-assigned this Jan 7, 2026
Copy link
Collaborator

@dkcumming dkcumming left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't understand this, if we change the post-condition from what there is for p-token we are going to break our definition of equivalence. What is the goal with this change? EDIT: Sorry I wasn't fully paying attention when I reviewed this, I see what you mean, let me take a closer look though.

@Stevengre Stevengre requested a review from dkcumming January 9, 2026 03:02
Copy link
Collaborator

@dkcumming dkcumming left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Really I think this can be reduced to one harness that fails in all cases right?

fn test_process_withdraw_excess_lamports_multisig(
    program_id: &Pubkey,
    accounts: &[AccountInfo; 3],
    instruction_data: &[u8; 1],
) -> ProgramResult {

    //-Process Instruction-----------------------------------------------------
    let result = Processor::process(program_id, accounts, instruction_data_with_discriminator);

    assert_eq!(result, Err(TokenError::InvalidInstruction.into()));

    result
}

@Stevengre Stevengre requested a review from dkcumming January 9, 2026 04:03
Copy link
Collaborator

@dkcumming dkcumming left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome, the performance gain on these proofs with this change should be massive! ;)

@Stevengre Stevengre merged commit 2ffd06f into proofs Jan 9, 2026
1 check passed
@Stevengre Stevengre deleted the jh/process_withdraw_excess_lamports branch January 9, 2026 04:24
dkcumming pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2026
…alidInstruction` (#146)

`process_withdraw_excess_lamports` is missed in spl-token and
implemented in token-2022.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants