Le 24/01/2018 à 13:45, Miroslav Lichvar a écrit : > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:42:22PM +0100, FUSTE Emmanuel wrote: >> Le 23/01/2018 à 16:58, Miroslav Lichvar a écrit : >>> A similar thing seem to happen when trying to use the interleaved mode >>> between two 4.2.8p10 ntpds. You said it worked for you before, so I >>> assume one of the ntpds was an older version which didn't have this >>> bug? >> I have a platform with tree ntpds in interleaved mode >> Was on 2.4.8p8. >> Were upgraded today to 2.4.8p10 and are still working properly. > You are right. My test was bad (it hit the bug with unsynchronized > source). > > The bug in the interleaved mode is a bit more subtle. The state is > updated from received packet, but only when one of the timestamps is > zero (i.e. it's the first packet of the association). This means two > ntpd 4.2.8p10 can interoperate, but I suspect the association will not > recover if there is a mismatch between the receive timestamps. > > I'll send a bug report to the ntp maintainers. > > In the meantime, if you are willing to patch ntp, this should fix it: > > diff -up ntp-4.2.8p10/ntpd/ntp_proto.c.orig ntp-4.2.8p10/ntpd/ntp_proto.c > --- ntp-4.2.8p10/ntpd/ntp_proto.c.orig 2018-01-24 13:35:16.611488502 > +0100 > +++ ntp-4.2.8p10/ntpd/ntp_proto.c 2018-01-24 13:35:24.113505866 +0100 > @@ -1774,7 +1774,6 @@ receive( > peer->bogusorg++; > peer->flags |= FLAG_XBOGUS; > peer->flash |= TEST2; /* bogus */ > - return; /* Bogus packet, we are done */ > } > Yes it work !
Thank you. Emmanuel.
