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

fuzz: Use `__AFL_SHM_ID` for naming test directories

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by marcofleon

83/100 · Strong
fuzz: Use `__AFL_SHM_ID` for naming test directories

Use the AFL++ shared memory ID environment variable to create
a deterministic datadir path. This prevents accumulation of stale
directories after a fuzz iteration crashes or times out. During
long fuzz campaigns, this accumulation has occasionally resulted
in running out of disk space.
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Mentions testing or verification
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This change only affects how Bitcoin Core's internal fuzz tests create temporary working folders. When running under the AFL++ fuzzer, it now reuses a folder named after the fuzzer's shared-memory ID and deletes any leftover contents first, instead of creating a new random folder every time. This prevents old test folders from piling up and filling the disk during long fuzzing runs. It is a test-infrastructure cleanup, not a fix for a vulnerability in Bitcoin's network or wallet code.

Recommended action

No security response required. Treat as a normal test-hardening commit. If fuzzing Bitcoin Core, update to avoid disk-space issues during long campaigns.

Security signals we found

01

Resource exhaustion (disk space) in fuzzing infrastructure

02

Test-only code path, not reachable in production node operation

03

No input validation or cryptographic changes

04

No privilege boundary crossed

Risk score

Why this scored 19/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 2/30
Exploitability 1/25
Stealth signal 1/15
Affected reach 2/15
Confidence 9/10
Evidence quality 4/5
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.