From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA4B77D24
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:01:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 752A217C61
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:01:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 1066417C55
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:01:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DE95D462A5
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:01:10 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:01:10 +0200
From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
To: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <20210429070110.7pngjgt4656nuyln@wobu-vie.proxmox.com>
References: <20210422140213.30989-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
 <20210422140213.30989-6-w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
 <fde11f0c-6fee-89df-07f6-4b604e072235@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <fde11f0c-6fee-89df-07f6-4b604e072235@proxmox.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.032 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v2 backup 05/27] CertInfo: add not_{after,
 before}_unix
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 07:01:11 -0000

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 08:13:19AM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> Seems I can do it without foreign-types:
> 
> fn asn1_time_to_unix(time: &openssl::asn1::Asn1TimeRef) -> Result<i64,
> Error> {
>     let epoch0 = openssl::asn1::Asn1Time::from_unix(0)?;
>     let diff = epoch0.diff(time)?;
>     let seconds = (diff.days as i64) * 24*60*60 + (diff.secs as i64);
>     Ok(seconds)
> }
> 
> Any objections?

Yes, for 2 reasons:
* openssl does provide the functionality and the dependency is already
  in our tree because openssl pulls it in
* 1100 days in already covers 3 leap seconds and I don't want to worry
  about whether `diff.days` takes that into account, the best time math
  is no time math at all