From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 19 17:11:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF7516A4CE for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp0.server.rpi.edu (smtp0.server.rpi.edu [128.113.53.41]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E8F43D5F for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:11:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp0.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3K0B8Ed008904; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:11:08 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040419225714.GC47217@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20040301145508.GA27240@seekingfire.com> <20040301150312.GQ35475@elvis.mu.org> <200404191408.56929.peter@wemm.org> <20040419225714.GC47217@xor.obsecurity.org> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:11:06 -0400 To: Kris Kennaway From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Minor problem with 64bTT: monthly accounting figures X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:11:09 -0000 At 3:57 PM -0700 4/19/04, Kris Kennaway wrote: >On Mon, Apr 19, 2004, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > At 2:08 PM -0700 4/19/04, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > >> >However, there is also a big scary comment that says: > > > > > > * With sparc64 using 64-bit time_t's, there is some system > > > * routine which sets ut_time==0 (the high-order word of a > > > * 64-bit time) instead of a 32-bit time value. > > > >> >It sounds like something clobbers ut_time.. >> >> Big scary comment added by me, when fixing 'ac' to do more >> reasonable things with such records... Afaik, we have still >> not figured out what it is that writes records with zero for >> the timestamp. > >Should an erratum be added in case this is unresolved by 5.3, >or is this too minor an issue? I have been considering it a minor issue. But then, I also hoped that someone would notice the new warning message from `ac', rerun it in debug-mode, and be able to match up the bad-records with whatever they were doing at the time. And then we'd have a good clue as to which program is sometimes writing these bad records. But I guess that in normal operation, people won't see that message until the monthly-run, so maybe it won't come up often. In the cases I saw, it was just a few bad records over the course of a month, so I assume that whatever-it-is, it is something that doesn't happen often. I haven't seen it happen on my systems at all, but then almost all my sessions are made via ssh, so in my case it would either happen all the time, or it would probably never come up. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu