AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

Run the CI fuzz job on the stable toolchain

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by auto-pr-bot

86/100 · Strong
Run the CI fuzz job on the stable toolchain

@matt asked:

> Failing to build this time.
>
> ```
> error: cannot install package `honggfuzz 0.5.62`, it requires rustc 1.85 or newer, while the currently active rustc version is 1.75.0
> `honggfuzz 0.5.61` supports rustc 1.70
> ```
>
> @auto-pr-bot please fix.

The `fuzz` job doesn't compile anything we ship, it builds the fuzz
targets against `honggfuzz` and then runs them. That the targets build on
our MSRV is checked by the `fuzz_sanity` job, which compiles both fuzz
crates with 1.75 on every push, so there is nothing the `fuzz` job adds
by using the MSRV toolchain itself.

What it does add is a dependency on `honggfuzz` still supporting our
MSRV. It doesn't: 0.5.62 requires rustc 1.85, so the job can only install
progressively older releases of a tool we merely need to run, and each
`honggfuzz` MSRV bump breaks the job until someone moves the pin.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Requested-by: @matt
Link: https://git.rust-bitcoin.org/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/issues/4968
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Mentions testing or verification✓ Links an issue, advisory, or supporting reference
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit changes the Rust toolchain used in the continuous integration (CI) fuzzing job from a fixed older version (1.75) to the latest stable release. It is purely a build/test infrastructure change to fix a dependency compatibility issue with the honggfuzz fuzzing tool. It does not change any shipped code, user-facing behavior, or security-sensitive logic.

Recommended action

No security action required. Treat as a normal CI maintenance change.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
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.