Zip Extended Timestamp signedness changed in JDK9 but not JDK8
xueming.shen at oracle.com
Tue Jul 4 23:36:47 UTC 2017
There are two issues here.
(1) to fix/support the possible unix timestamp year 2038 issue when
that extra timestamp(s) is used;
(2) to backport the fix to 8u.
I would assume the direct trigger of "wasting a meaningful amount of
time ..." is (1) ?
Sure the root cause is we did not address year 2038 issue at first place
when we added the extra
timestamp support in jdk8. My apology :-)
Btw, the changeset Simon mentioned/sited actually does not fix the
issue. It actually will expose
the issue on year 2038 with the signed 32-bit int (it now follows the
specification, which says the
timestamp is an uint32). The real fix is the changeset for #8161942.
Sure, we can backport it if desired. My original assumption is that this
is something can wait, until
there is an escalation/real need ... we might have one now :-)
On 7/4/17, 2:05 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> At the end of the day, my experience over at Apache Commons is that
> these kinds of bugs waste a meaningful amount of time even if they may
> not become an application level bug in the future. The bug wastes time
> On Jul 4, 2017 13:27, "Xueming Shen" <xueming.shen at oracle.com
> <mailto:xueming.shen at oracle.com>> wrote:
> I would assume it's reasonable to believe 2037/2107 problem is NOT
> going to be a critical issue
> for jdk8u, given the fact we are talking about the "timestamp" of
> a zip entry. I meant I'm pretty
> much sure jdk8u will not be around :-) when we have any real 2037
> entry timestamp, sure we
> do/can have test cases for such issue. That said, I think we can
> squeeze in a patch to address
> this issue when we are adding other relatively "critical"
> patch(s), if such fix is really desired.
> On 7/4/17, 7:25 AM, Simon Spero wrote:
> There was a fair degree of backporting of zip timestamp code,
> but the
> bugfix to (signed vs unsigned) didn't make it.
> The corner cases that aren't handled are not-handled consistently.
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Alan
> Bateman<Alan.Bateman at oracle.com <mailto:Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>>
> On 03/07/2017 20:05, Simon Spero wrote:
> It is strange that this wasn't backported to jdk8u,
> since other changes to
> zip rom around the same time are present. Also, this
> fix doesn't seem to
> be mentioned in JIRA or the release notes.
> There were API changes as part of this update so not
> appropriate to
> backport. More generally, the zip code has changed
> significantly in JDK 9
> to replace native implementation. I think the highest
> priority is to make
> sure that there aren't any corner cases that were handled
> in 8 but not
> handled in 9.
More information about the core-libs-dev