------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=972
--- Comment #9 from Simon Arlott <bugzilla.exim.simon@???> 2010-09-06 13:05:15 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> What is the correct behaviour when a clock steps back? What if it's a
> 305-second step back (admin noticed drifting clock when a
> 5-minute-sync-requirement protocol broke)? Well, if the clock goes back early
> in the process and the signal is delivered at the correct time, things will
> work. If the signal is late, there will be a second 305-second sleep. If the
> clock goes back later in the process, we'll sleep for 3x[very small delta] and
> still not catch up, so give up.
The issue here appears to be with milliwait(), which waits until time X. All
that exim really requires is to sleep for a period of time. Couldn't it use
nanosleep() instead of setitimer()? If the current time is being changed then
there's very little exim can do to guess at how that will affect message ID
reuse in a race condition, but sleeping for the message ID interval should be
adequate.
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
