desktop-packages team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Robert, or anyone else affected,

Accepted lightdm into vivid-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lightdm/1.14.3-0ubuntu1 in a few
hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package.  See
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to
enable and use -proposed.  Your feedback will aid us getting this update
out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug,
mentioning the version of the package you tested, and change the tag
from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not fix the
bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to
verification-failed.  In either case, details of your testing will help
us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification .  Thank you in
advance!

** Changed in: lightdm (Ubuntu Vivid)
       Status: In Progress => Fix Committed

** Tags added: verification-needed

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1481561

Title:
  Connect to XDMCP clients on address requests come from if available

Status in Light Display Manager:
  Fix Released
Status in Light Display Manager 1.10 series:
  Fix Committed
Status in Light Display Manager 1.14 series:
  Fix Released
Status in Light Display Manager 1.2 series:
  Fix Committed
Status in lightdm package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in lightdm source package in Vivid:
  Fix Committed

Bug description:
  [Impact]
  Currently LightDM connects to an XDMCP enabled X server using the first suitable address in the XDMCP Request packet. However, some clients may put a number of addresses in this message and potentially they are not all routable. If the address the request message came from is in the list we should use that first as that is more likely to be a routable address. This also matches the behaviour of GDM which ignores the contents of the Request packet anyway.

  [Test Case]
  1. Start LightDM with XDMCP enabled
  2. Connect with a client that puts a number of addresses in the Request packet

  Expected result:
  LightDM prefers the address the Request came from over the other addresses.

  Observed result:
  LightDM always picks the first address.

  [Regression Potential]
  There is a possibility of a behaviour change in existing clients that had two valid addresses, though the particular address shouldn't matter (unless complex firewalling / routing rules are being used). There is a risk that XDMCP behaviour could have been broken by the change (tested with regression tests).

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/lightdm/+bug/1481561/+subscriptions