AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 19 Bitcoin

qa: Account for errno not always being set for ConnectionResetError

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Hodlinator

81/100 · Strong
qa: Account for errno not always being set for ConnectionResetError

Logging issue can be triggered by:

```diff
--- a/src/httpserver.cpp
+++ b/src/httpserver.cpp
@@ -263,6 +263,7 @@ std::string RequestMethodString(HTTPRequest::RequestMethod m)
/** HTTP request callback */
static void http_request_cb(struct evhttp_request* req, void* arg)
{
+ throw std::runtime_error{"Hello"};
evhttp_connection* conn{evhttp_request_get_connection(req)};
// Track active requests
{
```

http.client.RemoteDisconnected not specifying errno to ConnectionResetError-ctor:
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/ce4b0ede16aea62ee7b1e02df7e1538102a356da/Lib/http/client.py#L1556C9-L1556C29
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Links an issue, advisory, or supporting reference
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This is a small fix to Bitcoin Core's internal Python test framework. When a test talks to a running node and the connection is reset unexpectedly, Python's error object sometimes doesn't include a standard error number. The patch makes the test code treat that as a connection reset, so it can log and retry correctly instead of crashing the test run. It does not change the Bitcoin node itself, user wallets, consensus rules, or network behavior.

Recommended action

No security action required. Treat as a normal test-framework reliability improvement. Reviewers may optionally verify that the new ConnectionResetError branch is covered by existing functional tests that simulate node crashes or disconnects.

Security signals we found

01

No security signal: change is in test framework only

02

No remote attack surface introduced

03

No change to consensus, networking, wallet, or RPC server code

Risk score

Why this scored 19/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 2/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 3/15
Confidence 9/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.