Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1325617 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#1325617 — Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X.509: Handle midnight alternative notation in GeneralizedTime

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1327062 — Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X.509: Handle midnight alternative notation in GeneralizedTime

On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:28:41 +0000
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> 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?

I'd have to actually go and real all the standards for that one.

Alan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web