This bug was fixed in the package lightdm - 1.14.4-0ubuntu1
---------------
lightdm (1.14.4-0ubuntu1) vivid; urgency=medium
* New upstream release:
- Handle XDMCP Request packet with no addresses. (LP: #1516831)
- Don't start LightDM if the XDMCP server is configured with a key that
doesn't exist. (LP: #1517685)
- Add IP addresses to XDMCP log messages.
- Refactor XDMCP error handling.
- Add more tests.
-- Robert Ancell <robert.anc...@canonical.com> Fri, 20 Nov 2015
16:01:15 +1300
** Changed in: lightdm (Ubuntu Vivid)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
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 Precise:
New
Status in lightdm source package in Trusty:
Fix Released
Status in lightdm source package in Vivid:
Fix Released
Status in lightdm source package in Wily:
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
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
