From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 4 18:40:24 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756DE16A4DE for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:40:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF7B43D53 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:40:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k34IeNZa042208 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:40:23 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k34IeNZM042207; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:40:23 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:40:23 GMT Message-Id: <200604041840.k34IeNZM042207@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: hotlips Internet admin Cc: Subject: Re: misc/95290: amd64 inetd returns 8 byte time value instead of 4 byte X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: hotlips Internet admin List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:40:24 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/95290; it has been noted by GNATS. From: hotlips Internet admin To: kris@obsecurity.org (Kris Kennaway) Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/95290: amd64 inetd returns 8 byte time value instead of 4 byte Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:37:33 -0400 (EDT) Thus saith Kris Kennaway: | | | --liOOAslEiF7prFVr | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii | Content-Disposition: inline | | On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 11:36:14PM +0000, Bruce Becker wrote: | | > >How-To-Repeat: | > Enable the "time" builtin in inetd.conf, then "telnet localhost time > xxx" - | > the last line of "xxx" will contain the erroneous 8 byte result | | There's also an argument that the RFC is broken since 64-bit time_t is | the way of the future (i.e. the RFC is not Y2.038K compliant and will | need to be amended anyway). Of course you are right, but i need to get my NetApp time synchronised properly in the meantime :) ... -- Bruce Becker +1 416 410 0879 GTS Network Administration Toronto, Ont. Email: hostmaster@gts.net