[LEAPSECS] more poison in the NTP pool

Warner Losh imp at bsdimp.com
Tue Sep 4 09:35:04 EDT 2012

On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Paul Sheer wrote:




>> It seems from this that there are always a few people advertising

>> leap seconds when they shouldn't be...




> previously i proposed that any code that measures a fail-timeout make

> that timeout 1000ms longer whenever t % 86400 is near zero

I assume that you mean near 0 or near 86400 since % is unsigned.

> this pattern would duck most bugs

With timeouts, yes. With other things, not so much...

> these bogus advertisements seem like another good reason to implement

> this

It says a lot about the robustness of leap seconds...


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list