AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 35 Bitcoin

swaps: cache SwapData in self._swaps instead of accessing storage

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by ThomasV

85/100 · Strong
swaps: cache SwapData in self._swaps instead of accessing storage

SwapsData contains several fields that are not stored on disk.
We should not expect these fields to be persisted across database access.
This commit caches swap data in self._swaps instead of accessing the storage, so that temporary fields are reusable.
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This change is a bug-fix-style refactor for Electrum's submarine swap feature. It separates in-memory cached swap data from data saved to disk, so temporary fields used while a swap is running don't get lost or behave inconsistently when the code reads from storage. The commit itself does not describe a security vulnerability, but the underlying bug it fixes—relying on disk storage for fields that were never persisted—could in theory cause swap state confusion, such as duplicate processing or stale indexing.

Recommended action

Treat as a maintainability/state-correctness fix. Review whether the prior behavior could have led to user-visible swap failures or double-processing; no immediate security patch is indicated by the commit alone. If Electrum later discloses a related security issue, re-evaluate with that advisory.

Security signals we found

01

State inconsistency between in-memory object and on-disk storage

02

Temporary/private fields assumed persistent across storage access

03

Refactor that removes direct mutation of persistent dict from indexing logic

04

Potential for duplicate or stale swap entries if cache and storage diverge

Risk score

Why this scored 35/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 5/25
Stealth signal 6/15
Affected reach 7/15
Confidence 6/10
Evidence quality 3/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.