[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1340106888.6871.20.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:54:48 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -stable] ntp: Correct TAI offset during leap second
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:28 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:55:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 19:34 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > > The offset should change upon entering state OOP, so something like
> > > the following (untested) patch should fix it for 3.2.9.
> > [...]
> >
> > It looks like this patch just changes the offset reported by adjtimex()
> > during an inserted second; is that right?
>
> Right, nothing really terrible will happen. The worst that I can
> imagine is that ntpd will set the new TAI offset during OOP, and then
> the kernel will add one to it, resulting in the TAI offset being off
> by one.
>
> But I really doubt any software makes use of this information.
>
> > Other than that, is 3.2.y likely to be OK? Is there a good way to test
> > that in advance; does
> > <http://codemonkey.org.uk/2012/06/15/testing-leap-code/> look
> > reasonable?
>
> Well, if you want to wait all night then that is one way to do it.
I was intending to change the clock too...
> Here is a little test program I have been using:
>
> https://github.com/richardcochran/leap
Thanks, that runs without incident but does show the incorrect offset
during OOP.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
If more than one person is responsible for a bug, no one is at fault.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists