Address potential reentrancy vector on LivenessModule2

[alcueca]

Very unlikely case, and against the assumptions on the spec, but still a style issue that might be raised by auditors.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.36%. Comparing base (07a6044) to head (0943132).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop   #17975      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    75.15%   81.36%   +6.21%     
===========================================
  Files          175      120      -55     
  Lines        11257     6472    -4785     
===========================================
- Hits          8460     5266    -3194     
+ Misses        2651     1206    -1445     
+ Partials       146        0     -146     

Flag	Coverage Δ
cannon-go-tests-64	?
contracts-bedrock-tests	81.36% <100.00%> (ø)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ges/contracts-bedrock/src/safe/LivenessModule2.sol	98.71% <100.00%> (ø)
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/safe/SaferSafes.sol	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 55 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[JosepBove]

Lgtm

[Ethnical]

why the livenessResponsePeriod is a uint256?
A smaller values like uint64 should be enough here no?

[Ethnical]

LGTM, will approve when we fixed the semver as matt mentionned above.