|
Message-ID: <20240324170436.GV4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 13:04:36 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: Alexander Weps <exander77@...me> Cc: Daniel Gutson <danielgutson@...il.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com, Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> Subject: Re: Broken mktime calculations when crossing DST boundary On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 01:36:42PM +0000, Alexander Weps wrote: > Also thanks for the Pacific/Apia example. Not only that it fails for that date: > Pattern: * * * * * * > Initial: 2011-12-29_23:59:59 > Expected: 2011-32-31_00:00:00 > Actual: 2011-12-29_00:00:00 > My cron tool again going back in time. > > It fails one other test. > > I have to run my tests on multiple timezones. > > And it works in glibc. > > And that's after I removed tm_isdst and rewrote half the code to accommodate. > > Can We agree on some simple premise that with no uncertain STD/DST > settings (tm_isdst = 0 or tm_isdst = 1), incrementing seconds by 1 > and calling mktime should never cause time to go back? > > Well, behold Pacific/Apia: > > I set 2011-12-29 23:59:59: > > tm_sec: 59 > tm_min: 59 > tm_hour: 23 > tm_mday: 29 > tm_mon: 11 > tm_year: 111 > tm_wday: 0 > tm_yday: 0 > tm_isdst: 1 > tm_gmtoff: 0 > tm_zone: (null) > > Calling mktime to see if everything is correct: > mktime(&tm); > > before: 2011-12-29 23:59:59 -10 > tm_sec: 59 > tm_min: 59 > tm_hour: 23 > tm_mday: 29 > tm_mon: 11 > tm_year: 111 > tm_wday: 4 > tm_yday: 362 > tm_isdst: 1 > tm_gmtoff: -36000 > tm_zone: -10 > > Incrementing seconds and calling mktime: > tm.tm_sec += 1; > mktime(&tm); > > after: 2011-12-29 00:00:00 -10 > tm_sec: 0 > tm_min: 0 > tm_hour: 0 > tm_mday: 29 > tm_mon: 11 > tm_year: 111 > tm_wday: 4 > tm_yday: 362 > tm_isdst: 1 > tm_gmtoff: -36000 > tm_zone: -10 > We went from: > 2011-12-29 23:59:59 -10 > To: > 2011-12-29 00:00:00 -10 > > By adding 1 second. The tm_isdst was not set to -1. > > This is totally unreliable. >From what I understand, you've set the input to a time that doesn't exist in the local timezone: 2011-12-30 00:00:00. This could be either 1 second after 2011-12-29 23:59:59, as you intended, or 1 day before 2011-12-31 00:00:00. The latter is how it was interpreted. However, it does not seem to have correctly set tm_gmtoff to reflect how it was interpreted. We should check this out because that's probably an actual bug. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.