Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add HAVE_BOLOS_APP_STACK_CANARY by default #488

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

fbeutin-ledger
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Add HAVE_BOLOS_APP_STACK_CANARY by default

Changes include

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change that solves an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (change that is not backwards-compatible and/or changes current functionality)
  • Tests
  • Documentation
  • Other (for changes that might not fit in any category)

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (6f81eb6) 59.44% compared to head (9f6e22d) 59.44%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #488   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.44%   59.44%           
=======================================
  Files          12       12           
  Lines        1684     1684           
=======================================
  Hits         1001     1001           
  Misses        683      683           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 59.44% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Makefile.defines Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@xchapron-ledger
Copy link
Contributor

xchapron-ledger commented Dec 6, 2023

This looks good, I'm wondering if we should go a bit further with:

  • Exposing a APP_STACK_CANARY_CHECK macro?
  • Considering changing the io_seproxyhal_se_reset(); into a LEDGER_ASSERT? This would help debugging, but is it a good idea if the stack have overflow to continue doing thing that are done when a LEDGER_ASSERT is called?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants