Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 02/11/10 16:41, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 11/02/2010 09:46 AM, Андрей Передрий wrote: >>> >>> Hello guys! >>> >>> I found a bug in 'sleep' command. >> >>> As you can see - 'sleep' was terminated by himself after 24 days, 20 hours, >>> 26 minutes and 33 seconds. >>> 24*24*3600 + 20*3600 + 26*60 + 33 = 2073600 + 72000 + 1560 + 33 = 2147193 >>> seconds >>> It seems like overflow. >>> coreutils 6.10-6 >>> Debian 5.0.6 >> >> Is your system 32-bit or 64-bit? It makes a difference in determining >> whether there is a bug in the OS sleep primitives (for example, we know >> that 64-bit Linux has a bug where nanosleep with an extremely large >> value will cause the kernel to overflow and sleep for the wrong amount >> of time, but coreutils has workarounds in place for that). > > I had a quick look at the gnulib replacement which > seems to assume 49 days is the worst case, > whereas we now need to use 24 days?
Sounds reasonable. It'd be good to document which kernel(s) are affected. Have you reproduced it? (i.e., in a VM, changing the date, if that is sufficient)
