[ntp:questions] ntpdate.c unsafe buffer write

Serge Bets serge.bets at NOSPAM.laposte.invalid
Tue Feb 12 11:16:00 UTC 2008


Hello David,

 On Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 3:03:37 +0000, David L. Mills wrote:

> The behavior after a step is deliberate. The iburst volley after a
> step is delayed a random fraction of the poll interval to avoid
> implosion at a busy server.

Ah OK, I understand now! Thank you.

This makes me wonder: When starting ntpd -gq doing a step and quitting,
then immediatly starting ntpd daemon, this sequence sends 2 iburst
volleys, over around 14 seconds, without the said random delay in
between. Is that not rude to servers? The slew_sleeping script should be
modified to sleep some time after a step. How much? 16 to 64 s?

| /^ntpd: time set .*s$/ {
|   sleep = 16 + int(rand() * 49)
|   success = 1
| }


Serge.
-- 
Serge point Bets arobase laposte point net




More information about the questions mailing list