Mark: Heads up! Policy issue.
Hal Murray :
> dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
> > One more reason I need to get my ACL language implemented and restrict needs
> > to die.
>
> If you kill restrict, we are taking a major step toward making ntp.conf file
> no longer compatible.
We are aware of this. D
On 7/5/16, Hal Murray wrote:
> The problem is that the ramp up on polling interval is happening on
> refclocks. Maybe only on PPS refclocks.
And the intended behavior is that refclocks should always stay at the
minimum polling interval? Okay, I'll keep that in mind as I hack. I'm
getting well en
dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
> What exactly is the "polling tangle" you're referring to? I talked to Eric
> about this earlier today, and he mentioned something about the polling
> interval drifting to 1024 seconds on a consistently reachable server. But
> AFAIK, nothing has changed and that's alway
On 7/5/16, Hal Murray wrote:
> Please don't push any big changes until Eric and/or I get the polling tangle
> fixed.
I'm doing my work in a branch for the time being, so we can merge
later. Anyway, I've completely rewritten the receive() and
process_packet() functions but haven't touched anything
dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
> The whole receive() function you're looking at is about to get blown away in
> my ntp_proto refactor. Can you hold off on touching it until next week?
Please don't push any big changes until Eric and/or I get the polling tangle
fixed.
dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
>
Daniel Franke :
> On 7/5/16, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Hal's bug report reads like this:
> >
> > restrict nopeer kills using the pool command. (Try it.) The symptom is
> > that no slots ever show up in ntpq -p
> >
> > The nopeer restriction is intended to prevent attackers from
> >
On 7/5/16, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Hal's bug report reads like this:
>
> restrict nopeer kills using the pool command. (Try it.) The symptom is
> that no slots ever show up in ntpq -p
>
> The nopeer restriction is intended to prevent attackers from
> pretending to be a peer and th
I think I may be on the road to a fix for GitLab issue #79: "pool
command conflicts with restrict nopeer", However, the relevant piece
of code is so horribly snarled, and the fix likely enough to produce subtle
bugs if we get it wrong, that I want some eyes on my assumptions before I
commit anythi
