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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Handle secret addresses that requires memory leak #4

Open
AlviseDeFaveri opened this issue Dec 14, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

Handle secret addresses that requires memory leak #4

AlviseDeFaveri opened this issue Dec 14, 2023 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@AlviseDeFaveri
Copy link
Contributor

When the secret address is in the form of

LOAD[uncontrolled] + controlled

We currently mark the secret_address_control as REQUIRES_MEM_LEAK, but in the reasoner we only consider valid secret addresses when secret_address_control is CONTROLLED.

Ideal solution would be splitting the secret address in a controlled and uncontrolled part, as we do for the base.
@AlviseDeFaveri AlviseDeFaveri mentioned this issue Dec 17, 2023
Merged
@AlviseDeFaveri AlviseDeFaveri added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 21, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@AlviseDeFaveri