[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Change by Irit Katriel : -- keywords: -patch versions: +Python 3.10, Python 3.8, Python 3.9 -Python 2.6 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ P

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Paul Ganssle added the comment: > Should we fix utcfromtimestamp() internally to avoid the OverflowError, > rather than only fixing the http.cookiejar module? I'm not a big fan of utcfromtimestamp (as you can see here: https://blog.ganssle.io/articles/2019/11/utcnow.html ), but it seems we d

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

STINNER Victor added the comment: @Paul Ganssle: it's a little sad that I have work around datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp() function to avoid an OverflowError exception: msg361972. Should we fix utcfromtimestamp() internally to avoid the OverflowError, rather than only fixing the http.c

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Neil MacLeod added the comment: Just an FYI, this is also broken on 32-bit with Python2.7.16, so possibly it was never fixed originally (rather than being a regression). LibreELEC (Milhouse): devel-20191012235627-#1012-ge416c8b (RPi2.arm) rpi22:~ # python -c "import sys, cookielib; print sys.

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Neil MacLeod added the comment: Hi Victor I can confirm the patch is working on both 32-bit and 64-bit systems running Python3.7.6, with both platforms returning the same result after patching - many thanks! UNPATCHED, 32-bit (RPi3+) LibreELEC (Milhouse.testing): devel-20200213234919-#

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

STINNER Victor added the comment: Oh, maybe the bug wasn't properly fixed? Can you please try the patch above? diff --git a/Lib/http/cookiejar.py b/Lib/http/cookiejar.py index 47ed5c3d64..55915cf18a 100644 --- a/Lib/http/cookiejar.py +++ b/Lib/http/cookiejar.py @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ def time2isoz

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

nmacleod added the comment: Apologies for the necro on this issue, but should this now be fixed in Python3.7? As it appears to still be an issue. Testing on a Raspberry Pi with LibreELEC (32-bit OS): rpi512:~ # python -c "import sys, http.cookiejar; print(sys.version); print(http.cookiejar.

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Alex Quinn added the comment: For those who are affected by this bug, here's a snippet to monkey-patch cookielib on any Python 2.4 to 2.7. A more complete version of this was attached to my message a moment ago. == import cookielib try: cookielib.tim

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Alex Quinn added the comment: This bug still exists in Python 2.7.3 32-bit on Linux. I wonder if this might be because the patch (posted 2011-02-18) used utcfromtimestamp(). datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(2**32) will fail on 32-bit systems. The bug does NOT exist in Python 2.7.3 32-bit o

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Changes by STINNER Victor : -- resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Un

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

STINNER Victor added the comment: > While it is unlikely that a purely numeric format such as "%Y-%m-%d > %H:%M:%S" will be locale dependent, it is possible that some pre-C99 > systems would format dates using exotic digits is some locales. Ok, I rewrote my patch to avoid strftime(). It should

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset b15f60f9e256 by Victor Stinner in branch '3.1': Issue #5537: Fix time2isoz() and time2netscape() functions of httplib.cookiejar http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b15f60f9e256 -- nosy: +python-dev ___ Pyth

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:04 AM, STINNER Victor wrote: .. > If datetime.strftime() is not reliable, we should maybe fix it instead of > using a workaround? The real fix would be to rewrite strftime so that it does not call system strftime. See issue31

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

STINNER Victor added the comment: If datetime.strftime() is not reliable, we should maybe fix it instead of using a workaround? -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: While it is unlikely that a purely numeric format such as "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S" will be locale dependent, it is possible that some pre-C99 systems would format dates using exotic digits is some locales. Given that format is so simple, I would just use expli

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

STINNER Victor added the comment: No, I forgot to upload it... -- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file20785/cookiejar_datetime.patch ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: Victor, I don't see your patch. Did you remove it? -- type: -> behavior ___ Python tracker ___

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

STINNER Victor added the comment: Oh, my patch is incomplete: time2netscape() has the same issue. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

STINNER Victor added the comment: > Shouldn't module time be changed to use a cross-platform implementation > that uses a 64 bit time_t-like type? Apparently Perl 6 has made the > equivalent change. The error occurs on time.gmtime(t): even if we use 64 bits time_t type, we have to downcast it

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

John J Lee added the comment: Shouldn't module time be changed to use a cross-platform implementation that uses a 64 bit time_t-like type? Apparently Perl 6 has made the equivalent change. Admittedly there seems to be no sign of that actually happening. -- nosy: +jjlee

[issue5537] LWPCookieJar cannot handle cookies with expirations of 2038 or greater on 32-bit platforms

New submission from Chris Hollenbeck : The LWPCookieJar can be saved on 64-bit Ubuntu, but not on 32-bit Ubuntu when the expiration year is greater than 2038. This has not been tested on any other Intel-compatible Linux platform, though it appears related to the Year 2038 bug. The MozillaCookie