💬 laanwj commented on pull request "common: Close non-std fds before exec in RunCommandJSON":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32343#issuecomment-2844721484)
> [@laanwj can you add some testing hints to the PR description? E.g. is there a way to deliberately trigger the potential bug that this fixes?

Sure: The simplest way to see if everything properly gets closed is to list `/proc/self/fd` at the beginning in the signer, as in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32343#issuecomment-2830252505 .

Alternatively, if you really want to create a bug, you could actively try to mess around with file descriptors that are already open at the start o
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: improve the interface around FindNode() and avoid a recursive mutex lock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32326#issuecomment-2844725476)
Made `m_nodes_mutex` non-recursive in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32394 which is this PR + one more commit.

💬 saikiran57 commented on pull request "Added rescan option for import descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31668#discussion_r2070201366)
Could you please check updated test cases.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "test: interface_usdt_net.py failure under --valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32374#issuecomment-2844745010)
I was not able to get this to reproduce using any of the sanitizers.

Connecting with `gdb`, shows all pointers and variables as valid at the callsite. I agree that `ConnectionTypeAsString` seems the natural culprit as it returns a temporary string, but even patching that to return `const *char`,still saw `SIGTRAP` raised.

Stepping through the tracepoint saw it execute without error, so it does seem to be a race/lifetime issue, but not really too sure where else to go from here.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: replace manual reference counting of CNode with shared_ptr":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32015#issuecomment-2844755692)
`15cc989538...8b93e0894f`: fix CI clang-tidy

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2844766695)
ACK 47e713ea5a96d3bb2ddd64c8a87607e5ccea8c72

🤔 sipa reviewed a pull request: "crypto: Use secure_allocator for `AES256_ctx`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31774#pullrequestreview-2809732175)
utACK 591764f6170d6f74d7eebb5fec1cbf5b912098a4, just coding style nits

💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: Use secure_allocator for `AES256_ctx`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31774#discussion_r2070233390)
Coding style nit: `} else {`.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: Use secure_allocator for `AES256_ctx`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31774#discussion_r2070235644)
Coding style nit: space after `if`.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: test MAX_SCRIPT_SIZE for block validity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32304#issuecomment-2844817333)
@Christewart that's a different rule, if you add a test PR and it's not already covered I'll ack it!

🤔 Bonobirho99 reviewed a pull request: "net: make m_nodes_mutex non-recursive"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32394#pullrequestreview-2809778055)
- [ ] @smola 

# the solution SIDRA cap market on Mainn list auditor internal server it is maljefayri ceo

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710#issuecomment-2844850180)
ACK 1c0d89358e12fc871e99c8304d5cb50965cf7b9d

🌲 🪚

👍 Sjors approved a pull request: "Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710#pullrequestreview-2809792896)
ACK 1c0d89358e12fc871e99c8304d5cb50965cf7b9d 🌲 🪚

💬 sonnyxsm commented on pull request "policy: allow more than one OP_RETURN outputs per tx":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32381#issuecomment-2844905503)
this is not your wastebucket.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "validation: write chainstate to disk every hour":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30611#issuecomment-2844916056)
utACK e976bd3045010ee217aa0f2dca4c962aabb789d5

💬 oxqnd commented on issue "combinerawtransaction confusing with distinct transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25980#issuecomment-2844922900)
Could I try this issue?

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Replace all of the RecursiveMutex instances with the Mutex ones":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19303#issuecomment-2844930021)
The next one is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32394.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "net: make m_nodes_mutex non-recursive":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32394#issuecomment-2844931617)
> Partially resolves: #19303

Concept ACK on that.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "refactor: validation: mark CheckBlockIndex as const":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32364#discussion_r2070328953)
Super nitty, I was just curious about what the possible ways of doing this are, and maybe this is preferable:

Making `GetAllImpl` a static member, so it doesn't need to be passed both a `self` and a `this` pointer:
```diff
diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp
index 8fb8a876b3f..58bcd9e84e6 100644
--- a/src/validation.cpp
+++ b/src/validation.cpp
@@ -5646,14 +5646,14 @@ std::optional<uint256> ChainstateManager::SnapshotBlockhash() const
}

template <typename T>
-au
...

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: log which peer sent us a header":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826#issuecomment-2844940123)
> @mzumsande does that diagram look right to you?

Yes - very nice diagram!