Re: [PATCH] timing.cc integer overflow

[Henri Doreau <henri.doreau () gmail com>]

Hello,

Comments inline.

Thanks, I have committed this patch. However I think there's still some
> work to do. The member function ScanProgressMeter::printStatsIfNecessary
> does some of the same calculations as ScanProgressMeter::printStats, and
> it still does them with longs. I don't know what the effect would be,
> but it could cause the stats not to be printed when they should be, or
> vice versa. Can you look at that function and do the calculations in the
> same way, or (even better) remove the duplicated code into a separate
> function?
I have added a (public) method: ScanProgressMeter::estimateTimeLeft that
returns a double. It "factorizes" the duplicated code for both
ScanProgressMeter::printStatsIfNecessary and ScanProgressMeter::printStats.
So the patch contains a modified version of
ScanProgressMeter::printStatsIfNecessary, and the same way,
ScanProgressMeter::mayBePrinted was changed to compute things in seconds
only.

> Here's something I can't explain. Look at the results for 10 days
> elapsed with 10% completion. That gives a completion date 100 days after
> the start of the timer, which in the test code is set to 0:00:00,
> January 1, 2009. For me the local time 100 days after the start of the
> year will be 1:00 (or 0:59, that's just a rounding issue). That makes
> sense, because that's April 10 and daylight savings time will have
> started in the mountain time zone. But for you the local time of day
> will be 23:00? Is there a time zone that moves the clock backwards that
> time of year?
>
>  10 days elapsed
>  TEST Timing: About 0.00% done
> -TEST Timing: About 10.00% done; ETC: 23:00 (2160:00:00 remaining)
> -TEST Timing: About 20.00% done; ETC: 00:00 (960:00:00 remaining)
> +TEST Timing: About 10.00% done; ETC: 00:59 (2159:59:59 remaining)
> +TEST Timing: About 20.00% done; ETC: 23:59 (959:59:59 remaining)
>  TEST Timing: About 30.00% done; ETC: 08:00 (560:00:00 remaining)
Filling the t structure with zeros solves the problem : struct tm t = {0};
Cheers
Henri

Attachment: timing.h.patch
Description:

Attachment: timing.cc.patch
Description:

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org