soroban-sdk-macros

Version	Released
`28.0.0-rc.1` pre	Aug 25, 2026
`27.0.6` patch	Aug 13, 2026
`27.0.5` patch	Aug 03, 2026
`27.0.4` patch	Jul 31, 2026
`27.0.3` patch	Jul 28, 2026
`27.0.2` patch	Jul 23, 2026
`27.0.1` patch	Jul 21, 2026
`26.1.1` patch	Jul 21, 2026
`25.3.2` patch	Jul 21, 2026
`27.0.0` major	Jul 08, 2026
`27.0.0-rc.1` pre	Jun 17, 2026
`26.1.0` minor	Jun 08, 2026
`26.0.1` patch	May 26, 2026
`26.0.0` major	May 06, 2026
`26.0.0-rc.1` pre	Apr 09, 2026
`25.3.1` patch	Apr 06, 2026
`23.5.3` patch	Mar 11, 2026
`22.0.11` patch	Mar 11, 2026
`25.3.0` minor	Mar 07, 2026
`25.2.0` minor	Mar 06, 2026
`23.5.2` patch	Feb 13, 2026
`22.0.10` patch	Feb 13, 2026
`25.1.1` patch	Feb 13, 2026
`25.1.0` minor 1 CVE	Feb 06, 2026
`22.0.9` patch 1 CVE	Jan 28, 2026
`23.5.1` patch 1 CVE	Jan 28, 2026
`25.0.2` patch 1 CVE	Jan 28, 2026
`23.5.0` minor 1 CVE	Jan 26, 2026
`25.0.1` patch 1 CVE	Jan 26, 2026
`25.0.0` major 1 CVE	Jan 23, 2026
`25.0.0-rc.2` pre	Jan 17, 2026
`23.4.1` patch 1 CVE	Jan 17, 2026
`25.0.0-rc.1` pre	Jan 13, 2026
`23.4.0` minor 1 CVE	Dec 18, 2025
`23.3.0` minor 1 CVE	Dec 15, 2025
`23.2.1` minor 1 CVE	Nov 19, 2025
`23.1.1` patch 1 CVE	Nov 19, 2025
`23.1.0` minor 1 CVE	Oct 30, 2025
`23.0.3` patch 1 CVE	Oct 15, 2025
`23.0.2` patch 1 CVE	Sep 05, 2025
`23.0.1` patch 1 CVE	Sep 04, 2025
`23.0.0` major 1 CVE	Sep 03, 2025
`23.0.0-rc.3` pre	Aug 28, 2025
`23.0.0-rc.2.4` pre	Aug 05, 2025
`23.0.0-rc.2.3` pre	Jul 24, 2025
`23.0.0-rc.2.2` pre	Jul 16, 2025
`23.0.0-rc.2.1` pre	Jul 07, 2025
`23.0.0-rc.2` pre	Jul 03, 2025
`23.0.0-rc.1.1` pre	May 22, 2025
`23.0.0-rc.1` pre	May 20, 2025

28.0.0-rc.1 pre

Aug 25, 2026

27.0.6 patch

Aug 13, 2026

27.0.5 patch

Aug 03, 2026

27.0.4 patch

Jul 31, 2026

27.0.3 patch

Jul 28, 2026

27.0.2 patch

Jul 23, 2026

27.0.1 patch

Jul 21, 2026

26.1.1 patch

Jul 21, 2026

25.3.2 patch

Jul 21, 2026

27.0.0 major

Jul 08, 2026

27.0.0-rc.1 pre

Jun 17, 2026

26.1.0 minor

Jun 08, 2026

26.0.1 patch

May 26, 2026

26.0.0 major

May 06, 2026

26.0.0-rc.1 pre

Apr 09, 2026

25.3.1 patch

Apr 06, 2026

23.5.3 patch

Mar 11, 2026

22.0.11 patch

Mar 11, 2026

25.3.0 minor

Mar 07, 2026

25.2.0 minor

Mar 06, 2026

23.5.2 patch

Feb 13, 2026

22.0.10 patch

Feb 13, 2026

25.1.1 patch

Feb 13, 2026

25.1.0 minor

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Feb 06, 2026

22.0.9 patch

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Jan 28, 2026

23.5.1 patch

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Jan 28, 2026

25.0.2 patch

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Jan 28, 2026

23.5.0 minor

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Jan 26, 2026

25.0.1 patch

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Jan 26, 2026

25.0.0 major

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Jan 23, 2026

25.0.0-rc.2 pre

Jan 17, 2026

23.4.1 patch

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Jan 17, 2026

25.0.0-rc.1 pre

Jan 13, 2026

23.4.0 minor

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Dec 18, 2025

23.3.0 minor

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Dec 15, 2025

23.2.1 minor

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Nov 19, 2025

23.1.1 patch

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Nov 19, 2025

23.1.0 minor

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Oct 30, 2025

23.0.3 patch

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Oct 15, 2025

23.0.2 patch

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Sep 05, 2025

23.0.1 patch

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Sep 04, 2025

23.0.0 major

1 CVE

CVE-2026-26267 GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 Feb 17, 2026

The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

7.5 / 10

High

Network Low None None Unchanged None High None

Impact

The #[contractimpl] macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways:

Directly on the type as an inherent function:
```
impl MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}
```

Through a trait

impl Trait for MyContract {
    fn value() { ... }
}

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write MyContract::value(), Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that #[contractimpl] generates code that uses MyContract::value() style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously:

A impl Trait for MyContract block is defined with one or more functions, with #[contractimpl] applied.
A impl MyContract block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without #[contractimpl] applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

#[contract]
pub struct Contract;

impl Contract {
    /// Inherent function — returns 1.
    /// Bug: The macro-generated WASM export is wired up to call this function.
    pub fn value() -> u32 {
        1
    }
}

pub trait Trait {
    fn value(env: Env) -> u32;
}

#[contractimpl]
impl Trait for MyContract {
    /// Trait implementation — returns 2.
    /// Fix: The macro-generated WASM export should call this function.
    fn value() -> u32 {
        2
    }
}

Patches

The problem is patched in soroban-sdk-macros version 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from <Type>::func() to <Type as Trait>::func() when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists.

Users should upgrade to soroban-sdk-macros >= 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts.

Workarounds

If upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Fixed in


          22.0.10


          23.5.2


          25.1.1

References

Updated Feb 22, 2026 · Source: OSV.dev

Sep 03, 2025

23.0.0-rc.3 pre

Aug 28, 2025

23.0.0-rc.2.4 pre

Aug 05, 2025

23.0.0-rc.2.3 pre

Jul 24, 2025

23.0.0-rc.2.2 pre

Jul 16, 2025

23.0.0-rc.2.1 pre

Jul 07, 2025

23.0.0-rc.2 pre

Jul 03, 2025

23.0.0-rc.1.1 pre

May 22, 2025

23.0.0-rc.1 pre

May 20, 2025

Activity

Reach

Details