openzeppelin-contracts/contracts/token/ERC20/extensions/IERC20Permit.sol

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
// OpenZeppelin Contracts (last updated v5.1.0) (token/ERC20/extensions/IERC20Permit.sol)

pragma solidity ^0.8.20;

/**
 * @dev Interface of the ERC-20 Permit extension allowing approvals to be made via signatures, as defined in
 * https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2612[ERC-2612].
 *
 * Adds the {permit} method, which can be used to change an account's ERC-20 allowance (see {IERC20-allowance}) by
 * presenting a message signed by the account. By not relying on {IERC20-approve}, the token holder account doesn't
 * need to send a transaction, and thus is not required to hold Ether at all.
 *
 * ==== Security Considerations
 *
 * There are two important considerations concerning the use of `permit`. The first is that a valid permit signature
 * expresses an allowance, and it should not be assumed to convey additional meaning. In particular, it should not be
 * considered as an intention to spend the allowance in any specific way. The second is that because permits have
 * built-in replay protection and can be submitted by anyone, they can be frontrun. A protocol that uses permits should
 * take this into consideration and allow a `permit` call to fail. Combining these two aspects, a pattern that may be
 * generally recommended is:
 *
 * ```solidity
 * function doThingWithPermit(..., uint256 value, uint256 deadline, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s) public {
 *     try token.permit(msg.sender, address(this), value, deadline, v, r, s) {} catch {}
 *     doThing(..., value);
 * }
 *
 * function doThing(..., uint256 value) public {
 *     token.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), value);
 *     ...
 * }
 * ```
 *
 * Observe that: 1) `msg.sender` is used as the owner, leaving no ambiguity as to the signer intent, and 2) the use of
 * `try/catch` allows the permit to fail and makes the code tolerant to frontrunning. (See also
 * {SafeERC20-safeTransferFrom}).
 *
 * Additionally, note that smart contract wallets (such as Argent or Safe) are not able to produce permit signatures, so
 * contracts should have entry points that don't rely on permit.
 */
interface IERC20Permit {
    /**
     * @dev Sets `value` as the allowance of `spender` over ``owner``'s tokens,
     * given ``owner``'s signed approval.
     *
     * IMPORTANT: The same issues {IERC20-approve} has related to transaction
     * ordering also apply here.
     *
     * Emits an {Approval} event.
     *
     * Requirements:
     *
     * - `spender` cannot be the zero address.
     * - `deadline` must be a timestamp in the future.
     * - `v`, `r` and `s` must be a valid `secp256k1` signature from `owner`
     * over the EIP712-formatted function arguments.
     * - the signature must use ``owner``'s current nonce (see {nonces}).
     *
     * For more information on the signature format, see the
     * https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2612#specification[relevant EIP
     * section].
     *
     * CAUTION: See Security Considerations above.
     */
    function permit(
        address owner,
        address spender,
        uint256 value,
        uint256 deadline,
        uint8 v,
        bytes32 r,
        bytes32 s
    ) external;

    /**
     * @dev Returns the current nonce for `owner`. This value must be
     * included whenever a signature is generated for {permit}.
     *
     * Every successful call to {permit} increases ``owner``'s nonce by one. This
     * prevents a signature from being used multiple times.
     */
    function nonces(address owner) external view returns (uint256);

    /**
     * @dev Returns the domain separator used in the encoding of the signature for {permit}, as defined by {EIP712}.
     */
    // solhint-disable-next-line func-name-mixedcase
    function DOMAIN_SEPARATOR() external view returns (bytes32);
}