Add Murch’s inputs February 2025 merged without sanitizers #218

1. 
   murchandamus commented at 8:49 pm on February 5, 2025: contributor

   Repeat of #217, but merged without using sanitizers.
2. Add Murch’s inputs February 2025 merged without sanitizers 107f00230b
3. 
   maflcko commented at 10:39 am on February 6, 2025: contributor

   coverage previous pull:https://drahtbot.space/host_reports/DrahtBot/reports/coverage_fuzz/monotree/1172bc4157eefe80/7ca0eff221557a8b/fuzz.coverage/index.html coverage this pull: https://drahtbot.space/host_reports/DrahtBot/reports/coverage_fuzz/monotree/1172bc4157eefe80/107f00230b03630a/fuzz.coverage/index.html

   Size previous pull: 6.0GB https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6267654383599616?logs=fuzz_inputs_total_size#L1 Size this pull: 5.1GB https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6300484341858304?logs=fuzz_inputs_total_size#L1

   So it looks like this is overall better, because:

   • The coverage is the same (or slightly higher)
   • The size is smaller

   Obviously, there could be a risk that is hard to measure that some sanitizer-triggering inputs are “missed”, but this risk should be minimal and acceptable, because:

   • Fuzzing still happens with sanitizers, so any issues will still be found during normal fuzzing (normally even before this pull to qa-assets is created?)
   • Limiting qa-assets bloat is acceptable and in line with use_value_profile, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/d6c229d8bd4a6203a7255c140aa35c59fb20378b/test/fuzz/test_runner.py#L309
4. 
   maflcko commented at 10:44 am on February 6, 2025: contributor

   So, lgtm. I’ll merge on Friday.
5. 
   murchandamus commented at 7:31 pm on February 6, 2025: contributor

   Okay sounds good
6. maflcko merged this on Feb 7, 2025
7. maflcko closed this on Feb 7, 2025

   ---

Contributors
murchandamus maflcko