|
Message-ID: <oCIac8TddvslxzslJsKEEifujEIiwqQHGTecdTN49aYmwEEkzmTaEos66uKWzOY33QUWsGwMSmxbHL_Q_X_HP8Ojfrh7pgtQNURS8mC36Og=@pm.me> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:12:48 +0000 From: Alexander Weps <exander77@...me> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Broken mktime calculations when crossing DST boundary Analyzing this and Glibc behavior is perfectly valid for that case: + day, + day, - day, - day $ gcc foo.c -o foo && TZ=Pacific/Apia ./foo before: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 +14 0 after1: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 +14 1325239200 after1: 2011-12-30 00:00:00 +14 -1 after2: 2011-12-29 00:00:00 -10 1325152800 after2: 2011-12-30 00:00:00 -10 -1 after3: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 +14 1325239200 I can go forward and backward in time. $ musl-gcc foo.c -o foo && TZ=Pacific/Apia ./foo before: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 0 after1: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 +14 1325239200 after1: 2011-12-29 00:00:00 -10 1325152800 after2: 2011-12-28 00:00:00 -10 1325066400 after2: 2011-12-29 00:00:00 -10 1325152800 after3: 2011-12-29 00:00:00 -10 1325152800 Musl is off by 2 days and ran into a cycle. AW On Monday, March 25th, 2024 at 21:05, Alexander Weps <exander77@...me> wrote: > Sorry my bad, that was isdst = 0; > > $ gcc foo.c -o foo && TZ=Pacific/Apia ./foo > before: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 +14 0 > after1: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 +14 1325239200 > after2: 2011-12-30 00:00:00 +14 -1 > after3: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 +14 1325239200 > > $ musl-gcc foo.c -o foo && TZ=Pacific/Apia ./foo > before: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 0 > after1: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 +14 1325239200 > after2: 2011-12-29 00:00:00 -10 1325152800 > after3: 2011-12-29 00:00:00 -10 1325152800 > > I agree with isdst = 1; reuslts. > > AW > > > > > On Monday, March 25th, 2024 at 20:47, Rich Felker dalias@...c.org wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 03:38:13PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 06:57:49PM +0000, Alexander Weps wrote: > > > > > > > I am not sure which one you mean, all latest codes even includes > > > > headers and main... > > > > > > https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2024/03/25/3 > > > > > > > I have no idea what to tell you. > > > > > > The first version I found that's actually compilable is: > > > > > > https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2024/03/25/11 > > > > > > It roughly behaves as expected on musl, except possibly not applying > > > the tm_isdst=0, which is what was making the output confusing on > > > glibc -- that threw the input back across the rule change cutoff. > > > > No, it's deeper than this. glibc is offsetting the input by an entire > > day when tm_isdst=0, and I don't know why. It looks like a bug in > > glibc. > > > > > With tm_isdst=1 and tm_mday=31, on glibc, I get: > > > > > > before: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 WSDT 0 > > > after1: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 WSDT 1325239200 > > > after2: 2011-12-30 00:00:00 WSDT -1 > > > after3: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 WSDT 1325239200 > > > > > > The -1 in the after2 line indicates that mktime failed with an error > > > (and should not have modified tm; that's arguably a bug in glibc). The > > > partial modification that it made reflects the initial normalization > > > (type 1 in my notation) but not the rule change normalization (type 2 > > > in my notation) since glibc has failed the operation for an input date > > > that does not exist on the calendar (it does not do type 2 > > > normalization at all; it just rejects it). > > > > > > Running this same change on musl, I get: > > > > > > before: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 0 > > > after1: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 +14 1325239200 > > > after2: 2011-12-29 00:00:00 -10 1325152800 > > > after3: 2011-12-29 00:00:00 -10 1325152800 > > > > > > which again is what I expect. From one side, the move-by-1-day changes > > > the time to the next calendar day in that direction. From the other > > > side, it's unable to change it. > > > > > > I'll look into why the tm_isdst=0 application was not happening. > > > > Hmm, I must have misread the output. It seems to be correct with > > tm_isdst=0 too: > > > > before: 2011-12-31 00:00:00 0 > > after1: 2011-12-31 01:00:00 +14 1325242800 > > after2: 2011-12-29 01:00:00 -10 1325156400 > > after3: 2011-12-29 01:00:00 -10 1325156400 > > > > (If it's 00:00:00 in standard time, it's 01:00:00 in DST, so the > > initial time seems to have been interpreted correctly.) > > > > I also went back and tested both with tm_isdst=-1, and both glibc and > > musl do the same thing as they do with tm_isdst=1 (which is correct). > > > > 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.