[PATCH] kerberos: Fix expiry time conversion.
This got broken during transition to unixlib interface. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> --- dlls/kerberos/unixlib.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/dlls/kerberos/unixlib.c b/dlls/kerberos/unixlib.c index a735a1c6a47..c66557efcca 100644 --- a/dlls/kerberos/unixlib.c +++ b/dlls/kerberos/unixlib.c @@ -477,6 +477,7 @@ static void expirytime_gss_to_sspi( OM_uint32 expirytime, TimeStamp *timestamp ) NtQuerySystemTime( &time ); RtlSystemTimeToLocalTime( &time, &time ); + time.QuadPart += expirytime; timestamp->LowPart = time.QuadPart; timestamp->HighPart = time.QuadPart >> 32; } -- 2.33.1
Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes:
@@ -477,6 +477,7 @@ static void expirytime_gss_to_sspi( OM_uint32 expirytime, TimeStamp *timestamp )
NtQuerySystemTime( &time ); RtlSystemTimeToLocalTime( &time, &time ); + time.QuadPart += expirytime;
Isn't expirytime supposed to be in seconds? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes:
@@ -477,6 +477,7 @@ static void expirytime_gss_to_sspi( OM_uint32 expirytime, TimeStamp *timestamp )
NtQuerySystemTime( &time ); RtlSystemTimeToLocalTime( &time, &time ); + time.QuadPart += expirytime;
Isn't expirytime supposed to be in seconds?
Good catch, thanks, that's correct, however that's how it was in old code where I copied it from. Would you mind adding a multiplier before committing? Or should I resend the patch? -- Dmitry.
Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes:
Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes:
@@ -477,6 +477,7 @@ static void expirytime_gss_to_sspi( OM_uint32 expirytime, TimeStamp *timestamp )
NtQuerySystemTime( &time ); RtlSystemTimeToLocalTime( &time, &time ); + time.QuadPart += expirytime;
Isn't expirytime supposed to be in seconds?
Good catch, thanks, that's correct, however that's how it was in old code where I copied it from. Would you mind adding a multiplier before committing? Or should I resend the patch?
I'm reworking that code anyway, so I'll fix it. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
participants (2)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dmitry Timoshkov