From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 2 14:21:27 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from smtp.enteract.com (thor.enteract.com [207.229.143.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 18B5714E84 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 14:21:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: (qmail 6150 invoked from network); 2 Apr 1999 22:21:06 -0000 Received: from nathan.enteract.com (dscheidt@207.229.143.6) by thor.enteract.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 1999 22:21:06 -0000 Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 16:21:06 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: Matthew Dillon , Nick Sayer , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Suggestion: loosen slightly securelevel>1 time change restriction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Garance A Drosihn wrote: :Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 12:15:33 -0500 :At 5:30 PM -0800 4/1/99, Matthew Dillon wrote: :> We should remove the securelevel code that prevents the date from :> being set backwards. It's stupid code and doesn't work anyway... :> you can set the date forward enough times to wrap it. : :Well, obviously it would be nice to fix *that* problem, separate from :whether one is allowed to set time backwards by an explicit backwards :request. What is wrong with running the system clock slower than normal? That way time still advances monotonically forward, but at say 90 or 95% of the rate of the wall clock. Obviously, things that depend on the time of day clock will be misled, but setting the clock back would break them too. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message