[ntp:questions] WARNING: someone's faking a leap second tonight
jeffrey.lerman at gmail.com
Sat Aug 4 18:13:10 UTC 2012
On Fri, Aug 03 2012 at 5:42PM, Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>> Is the leap bit supposed to be cleared by a client if it gets LI=00
>> from a server? Or is the bit only *set* based on information from a
>> server, and cleared only upon application of the leap second? If the
>> latter is the current implementation, it might well explain the bogus
>> leap second behavior many of us saw a few days ago. Unless you have a
>> different explanation/understanding?
> I'd have to look all that up, and I know different versions behave
> This topic is something that's getting a lot of recent discussion and
Yes. The unfortunate combination of the bogus leap second and the
newly-discovered (on July 1) Linux kernel bug related to leap-second
handling means that bogus leap seconds have a much bigger-than-normal
It looks like this recently-filed (and cryptically-named) ntpd bug might
be related to the bogus leap seconds?
http://bugs.ntp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2246 "sys_leap is stick"
If so, that bug possibly ought to be bumped up in priority.
Meantime if we can confirm that installing a current/valid "leap
seconds" file should block bogus leap seconds, perhaps that could be a
recommended workaround to the bogus leap-seconds issue, until the actual
issue can be patched. Could you comment?
More information about the questions