Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X.509: Handle midnight alternative notation in GeneralizedTime

From	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X.509: Handle midnight alternative notation in GeneralizedTime
Date	2016-02-03 17:30 +0100
Message-ID	<qY8tB-4kE-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <qT2yu-8hL-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNlDP-14y-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNlDP-14y-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qT2RQ-8pt-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qT31v-8um-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903

Show all headers | View raw

One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > > As for 24:xx:yy times - I'm split about this. This code doesn't
> > > require a bijective decoding anyway (and if it did, 24:00:00 and
> > > 00:00:00 mapping to the same time64_t would be problem enough) so this
> > > is sure safe. On the other hand, a cert with a 24:xx:yy time that's
> > > not 24:00:00 probably should be regarded as invalid and not trusted
> > > for that reason alone.
> > 
> > Feel free to argue that one with Linus:-/
> 
> Pedantic hat on 24:00:01 is also potentially valid. The ANSI and ISO
> standards allow for double leap seconds even though CCIR-460 doesn't
> allow it to actually happen.

Did you mean 24:00:01 or 23:59:61?

David

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X.509: Handle midnight alternative notation in GeneralizedTime David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-02-03 17:30 +0100
  Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X.509: Handle midnight alternative notation in  GeneralizedTime One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2016-02-04 18:40 +0100

csiph-web