When a pass of CreateTransaction fails to select enough bitcoin to meet the nFeeNeeded the next pass through may select a far smaller collection of inputs.  Currently it will continue to use the old fee amount based on the larger set of inputs, which can cause a non-trivial over-payment.

This may be the cause of the behavior reported here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5ltw5n/bitcoin_core_v0131_sends_enormously_high_fee/

Long ago fixing this was tricky due to a catch-22 between signing the transaction and knowing how much fee was required.  But after #9465 the whole algorithm will run using a dummy signature, so when there is already a change output fixing up the fee after finding a sufficient transaction should be a matter of a ~2 line change.

int nVersion = s.GetVersion();
        if (!(s.GetType() & SER_GETHASH))
            READWRITE(nVersion);
        
        READWRITE(nCreditDebit);
        READWRITE(nTime);
        READWRITE(LIMITED_STRING(strOtherAccount, 65536));
        if (!ser_action.ForRead())
        {
            WriteOrderPos(nOrderPos, mapValue);
            if (!(mapValue.empty() && _ssExtra.empty()))
            {
                CDataStream ss(s.GetType(), s.GetVersion());
                ss.insert(ss.begin(), '\0');
                ss << mapValue;
                ss.insert(ss.end(), _ssExtra.begin(), _ssExtra.end());
                strComment.append(ss.str());
            }
        }
        READWRITE(LIMITED_STRING(strComment, 65536));
        size_t nSepPos = strComment.find("\0", 0, 1);
        if (ser_action.ForRead())
        {
            mapValue.clear();
            if (std::string::npos != nSepPos)
            {
                CDataStream ss(std::vector<char>(strComment.begin() + nSepPos + 1, strComment.end()), s.GetType(), s.GetVersion());
                ss >> mapValue;