Submitted by rbserver, also found by hansfriese, bin2chen, eccentricexit, chaduke, cccz, and ustas
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L253-L278 
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L211-L240 
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L496-L499 
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L473-L477
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L480-L494 
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L447-L460
The following Vault.redeem function does not use the syncFeeCheckpoint modifier, which is unlike the Vault.withdraw function below. Because of this, after calling the Vault.redeem function, highWaterMark is not synced. In this case, calling functions like Vault.takeManagementAndPerformanceFees after the Vault.redeem function is called and before the syncFeeCheckpoint modifier is triggered will eventually use a stale highWaterMark to call the Vault.accruedPerformanceFee function. This will cause the performance fee to be calculated inaccurately in which the feeRecipient can receive more performance fee than it should receive or receive no performance fee when it should.
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L253-L278
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L211-L240
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L496-L499
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L473-L477
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L480-L494
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-popcorn/blob/main/src/vault/Vault.sol#L447-L460
The following steps can occur for the described scenario.
VS Code
The Vault.redeem function can be updated to use the syncFeeCheckpoint modifier.
RedVeil (Popcorn) confirmed 
