What the developer wrote
Authored by Sjors Provoost
ci: bump MSan fuzz timeout
The MSan fuzz job has little headroom on fork CI when caches miss.
Examples from Sjors/bitcoin:
- PR 116 timed out after 2h30m: https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/actions/runs/27465468297/job/81187008305?pr=116
- PR 117 passed in 2h24m47s: https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/actions/runs/27465461797/job/81186956747?pr=117
- PR 118 passed in 2h18m22s: https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/actions/runs/27465761345/job/81187860567?pr=118
Bump the timeout to 180 minutes to leave room for runner variance.
What changed, and why it matters
This commit simply increases the time limit for one automated testing job in Bitcoin Core's continuous integration (CI) pipeline. It changes a single number from 150 to 180 minutes so that a memory-sanitizer fuzzing test is less likely to time out when caches are missing. There is no change to Bitcoin Core's actual code, no security fix, and no vulnerability.
No security action needed. This is a routine CI maintenance change.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The patch modifies .github/workflows/ci.yml, raising the timeout-minutes value for the ‘MSan, fuzz’ GitHub Actions job from 150 to 180. This is a CI configuration tuning change intended to accommodate runner variance and cache misses on fork CI. It does not alter any source code, build scripts, runtime behavior, or cryptographic logic.
Changed components
.github/workflows/ci.ymlInspect captured patch +1 / −1
diff --git a/.github/workflows/ci.yml b/.github/workflows/ci.yml
index 434b5e16..ad378205 100644
--- a/.github/workflows/ci.yml
+++ b/.github/workflows/ci.yml
@@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ jobs:
- name: 'MSan, fuzz'
warp-runner: 'warp-ubuntu-latest-x64-8x'
fallback-runner: 'ubuntu-latest'
- timeout-minutes: 150
+ timeout-minutes: 180
file-env: './ci/test/00_setup_env_native_fuzz_with_msan.sh'
- name: 'MSan'
Why this scored 15/100
Community notes
Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.
The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.