Submitted by ladboy233, also found by oakcobalt
In L1::xRenzoBridge the block.timestamp from L1 is encoded and sent to L2. When the message is delivered from L1 to L2  with xRenzoBridge::_updatePrice(), the function checks the block.timestamp like this:
This check is done to not allow future timestamps for updating the price But the timestamps between two chains L1 and L2 are different for chain like Arbitrum as theres a possibility that the sequencer fails to post batches on the parent chain (for example, Ethereum) for a period of time.
According to the Arbitrum docs:
So the issue is that timestamp validation for _updatePrice() wont be effective and can reject validation both l2 tiimestamp is not related to l1 timestamp
xRenzoBridge::sendPrice is used to send the price feed from L1 to L2. The
bytes memory _callData = abi.encode(exchangeRate, block.timestamp); encodes the block.timestamp of L1.
Now if we see this function xRenzoBridge::_updatePrice(), the timestamp here is compared to the timestamp of L2 is not effective to check the older price timestamps is greater than block.timestamp as both of these timestamps of L1 and L2 are different.
Remove the timestamp check in in L2 update rate.
Timing
jatinj615 (Renzo) acknowledged
EV_om (warden) commented:
ladboy233 (warden) commented:
alcueca (judge) commented:
