Add protocol fee variable in claim and clawback functions

[andreivladbrg]

The idea behind this is to add one more layer of security for users in case the protocol fee is changed after an airstream campaign is created.

This would have been an issue if the protocol fee is greater than 0 and there is no expiration, resulting in funds being locked and unable to be clawed back. Effectively, this would have allowed us to take a percentage of any airstream campaign that is created.

This PR fixes the following issue found by Zach Obront in his recent audit:

https://cantina.xyz/ai/6d6a47ff-5279-4502-8705-d837b159a31e/findings/e2ed29f3-34f2-4dc7-8849-38aa7f0c3b91

[PaulRBerg]

See my review in the comments.

The only thing left to do is to update the clawback function to revert with a new custom error for the case when the protocol is non-zero.

[andreivladbrg]

The only thing left to do is to update the clawback function to revert with a new custom error for the case when the protocol is non-zero.

To revert when the protocol fee is non-zero? you sure? i say that it shouldn't revert. there are 4 cases:

• protocolFee == 0 && hasExpired == false --> revert
• protocolFee == 0 && hasExpired == true --> can clawback
• protocolFee > 0 && hasExpired == false --> can clawback
• protocolFee > 0 && hasExpired == true --> can clawback

if the protocol fee is non-zero it means that claims are unavailable, and if the expiration is set to 0 how would someone claw back the funds if we are going to revert😅? am i missing smth?

[PaulRBerg]

To revert when the protocol fee is non-zero? you sure?
if the protocol fee is non-zero it means that claims are unavailable, and if the expiration is set to 0 how would someone claw back the funds if we are going to revert😅?

LOL! Thanks for the correction.

am i missing smth?

Nah, I have missed something. Thanks.

[andreivladbrg]

updated the precompiles, is this ready to be merged? @PaulRBerg

[PaulRBerg]

lgtm now