Ubuntu 17.10 GUI problem when connecting to Juniper/Pulse VPN

[Peter Papp]

Hi,

It's great news that the cause of the problem is known. Will the fix 
install automatically on Ubuntu? Sorry don't want to sound pushy, just 
want to know if there's anything extra users will have to do to get it.

Thank you



2017-11-02 16:08 keltezéssel, Daniel Lenski írta:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:48 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 22:19 -0700, Daniel Lenski wrote:
>>> The Juniper realm dropdown box ("authgroup" in openconnect-internal
>>> parlance) can't be modified when connecting to a Juniper VPN via the
>>> OpenConnect NM GUi plugin. If I try to change the realm, it snaps back
>>> to the previous value just as Peter describes. Screenshot showing the
>>> offending UI element: https://snag.gy/ZGfOWJ.jpg
>>>
>>> Strangely, this problem does *not* apply to AnyConnect-protocol VPNs,
>>> even though I know the form is stored internally in an identical
>>> format.
>> This is probably related to the OC_FORM_RESULT_NEWGROUP handling, where
>> the UI 'submits' the form with that result code immediately when the
>> user changes the group — to allow for the other fields which
>> appear/disappear according to the authgroup selection.
> Aha, that makes sense! When you select a new authgroup choice while
> connecting to an AnyConnect VPN, other fields can change.
>
>> It looks like Juniper does *nothing* except looping on
>> process_auth_form() while (ret == OC_FORM_RESULT_NEWGROUP). So the
>> question is why the UI's setting of the authgroup selection isn't
>> actually being saved.
> Right.
>
>> One option might simply be *not* to set form->authgroup_opt, which is
>> what triggers the UI to treat this option as the special "authgroup"
>> option, and return OC_FORM_RESULT_NEWGROUP when it changes. There's no
>> *need* for that special handling in this case as it isn't being used
>> anyway.
> Gotcha. Will skipping that affect the behavior of the CLI form-field
> inputs? I think not.
>
>> Dan, where are we with the final cleanups to the GP code to get that
>> merged? I spent a little while heckling and thought you were going to
>> keep going with the resulting minor cleanups?
> I actually was thinking about this recently :-). I went through
> previous email threads recently and tried to figure out if there were
> any specific changes you were waiting on from me. If this is the
> complete list (http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/openconnect-devel/2017-August/004466.html)
> you were waiting for me to:
>
> - Plug any remaining memory leaks
> - Move the UserAgent-mangling into a separate function (presumably
> customized for each protocol)
>
> Is there anything else that's holding it up?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>