[Samba] Transport endpoint is not connected
Stefan G. Weichinger
Hello, I tried to google this, but haven't found anything really
helpful so far.
I get stuff like this at one Samba-3.0.9-Domain-Member-Server:
> [2005/03/06 13:30:47, 1] smbd/service.c:make_connection_snum(647)
> fre2003 (192.168.86.11) connect to service users initially as user fre (uid=1006, gid=1000) (pid 31447)
> [2005/03/06 13:31:57, 1] smbd/service.c:close_cnum(835)
> fre2003 (192.168.86.11) closed connection to service users
> [2005/03/06 14:02:19, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1136)
> getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
> [2005/03/06 14:02:19, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1136)
> getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
> [2005/03/06 14:02:19, 0] lib/access.c:check_access(328)
> [2005/03/06 14:02:19, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1136)
> getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
> Denied connection from (0.0.0.0)
> [2005/03/06 14:02:19, 1] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1084)
> [2005/03/06 14:02:19, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1136)
> getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
> Connection denied from 0.0.0.0
> [2005/03/06 14:02:19, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket_data(430)
> write_socket_data: write failure. Error = Connection reset by peer
> [2005/03/06 14:02:19, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(455)
> write_socket: Error writing 5 bytes to socket 23: ERRNO = Connection reset by peer
> [2005/03/06 14:02:19, 0] lib/util_sock.c:send_smb(647)
> Error writing 5 bytes to client. -1. (Connection reset by peer)
> [2005/03/06 14:02:20, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1136)
> getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
> [2005/03/06 14:02:20, 0] lib/access.c:check_access(328)
> [2005/03/06 14:02:20, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1136)
> getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
> Denied connection from (0.0.0.0)
> [2005/03/06 14:02:20, 1] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1084)
> [2005/03/06 14:02:20, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1136)
> getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
> Connection denied from 0.0.0.0
> [2005/03/06 14:02:20, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket_data(430)
> write_socket_data: write failure. Error = Connection reset by peer
> [2005/03/06 14:02:20, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(455)
> write_socket: Error writing 5 bytes to socket 23: ERRNO = Connection reset by peer
> [2005/03/06 14:02:20, 0] lib/util_sock.c:send_smb(647)
> Error writing 5 bytes to client. -1. (Connection reset by peer)
The section [global]:
> [global]
> workgroup = WKGP
> netbios name = MAIL
> server string = Samba
> interfaces = eth* lo
> map to guest = Bad User
> security = domain
> password server = NTSERVER
> passdb backend = tdbsam
>
> encrypt passwords = yes
> name resolve order = wins bcast hosts
>
> domain master = no
> domain logons = no
> local master = no
> preferred master = no
> os level = 0
>
> load printers = no
> hosts allow = 192.168.86. 172.32.99. 127.
> wins support = yes
> log level = 1
>
> oplocks = no
> level2 oplocks = no
> kernel oplocks = no
This is an up-to-date Suse 9.2 Pro machine, with the rpm
samba-3.0.9-2.3 installed. (The 3.0.11 rpm didn't make much
difference). There is a NT PDC (= NTSERVER) in the LAN which does not
provide WINS, the WINS-Server-Address (= Samba-server) is distributed
via DHCP.
Any hints for me?
--
Regards,
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
William Jojo
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>
> Hello, I tried to google this, but haven't found anything really
> helpful so far.
>
> I get stuff like this at one Samba-3.0.9-Domain-Member-Server:
>
This is an indication that the connection was terminated by the client and
Samba is kind enough to tell you about it.
I see that a great deal in our logs. It has been suggested that it's due
to faulty network equipment. Of course I've seen this on an isolated net
with just the server, switch and PC. That's not to say it's not a genuine
network issue.
Anyway....
Bill
Daniel Pavel
I've seen this issue come up over and over on the mailing list, and yet
never make it in the FAQ. At some point I've slammed into it as well,
and had to solve it.
Don't exactly remember where I've found the solution, but it goes
something like this:
Windows (XP?) tries to connect on both ports 139 and 445, not knowing
what SMB version the remote machine supports. When it makes a
successful connection on one of the ports (139), it drops the other, and
samba gets noisy about it.
It you have a mixed windows environment (XP's, and older ones), you
might need both ports open. But if you only have XP's, you can safely put a
smb ports = 139
in your samba.conf file, and the useless messages will dissapear. Even
if you have a mixed environment, you should probably try this and see
how it goes.
I am quite sure I got the actual technical details rather wrong -- I've
read about this a long time ago, so please, somebody correct me.
However, I am also quite sure the solution works :).
Cheers,
-Daniel
--
"I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as
they go flying by."
-- Douglas Adams
Gerald (Jerry) Carter
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Pavel wrote:
| I've seen this issue come up over and over on the mailing list, and yet
| never make it in the FAQ. At some point I've slammed into it as well,
| and had to solve it.
|
| Don't exactly remember where I've found the solution, but it goes
| something like this:
|
| Windows (XP?) tries to connect on both ports 139 and 445, not knowing
| what SMB version the remote machine supports. When it makes a
| successful connection on one of the ports (139), it drops the other, and
| samba gets noisy about it.
It normally drops the connection to port 139.
| It you have a mixed windows environment (XP's, and older ones), you
| might need both ports open. But if you only have XP's, you can safely
| put a
| smb ports = 139
| in your samba.conf file, and the useless messages will dissapear. Even
| if you have a mixed environment, you should probably try this and see
| how it goes.
|
| I am quite sure I got the actual technical details rather wrong -- I've
| read about this a long time ago, so please, somebody correct me.
| However, I am also quite sure the solution works :).
Your explanation was pretty much spot on.
cheers, jerry
=====================================================================
Alleviating the pain of Windows(tm) ------- http://www.samba.org
GnuPG Key ----- http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc
"I never saved anything for the swim back." Ethan Hawk in Gattaca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCLJ/SIR7qMdg1EfYRAq4MAJ93tB+Ee4urqzD/+rUqT05gYzQbCACfRO8c
eEfO94OrQ+ZcprZ3zrbbA3A=
=SOLS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Jojo
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Daniel Pavel wrote:
>
> | I've seen this issue come up over and over on the mailing list, and yet
> | never make it in the FAQ. At some point I've slammed into it as well,
> | and had to solve it.
> |
> | Don't exactly remember where I've found the solution, but it goes
> | something like this:
> |
> | Windows (XP?) tries to connect on both ports 139 and 445, not knowing
> | what SMB version the remote machine supports. When it makes a
> | successful connection on one of the ports (139), it drops the other, and
> | samba gets noisy about it.
>
> It normally drops the connection to port 139.
>
Here are a couple of links further describing your findings.
http://www.petri.co.il/what_is_port_445_in_w2kxp.htm
http://ntsecurity.nu/papers/port445/
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/26709/26709.html
I wonder what the Samba developers suggest as a recommended means of
setting up both Samba and the clients. (Primarily for our newbee's moving
to Samba and such :-) )
Bill
Gerald (Jerry) Carter
Hash: SHA1
William Jojo wrote:
| Here are a couple of links further describing your findings.
|
| http://www.petri.co.il/what_is_port_445_in_w2kxp.htm
|
| http://ntsecurity.nu/papers/port445/
|
| http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/26709/26709.html
|
| I wonder what the Samba developers suggest as a recommended
| means of setting up both Samba and the clients. (Primarily
| for our newbee's moving to Samba and such :-) )
Not sure what you mean here, Bill.
cheers, jerry
=====================================================================
Alleviating the pain of Windows(tm) ------- http://www.samba.org
GnuPG Key ----- http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc
"I never saved anything for the swim back." Ethan Hawk in Gattaca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFCLw0ZIR7qMdg1EfYRAl3/AJiL/5ldiovFuSYdZ3kMHMWtZ/cHAJ9dODeK
IJ2ZteApr1Rbmwqc7eGxsQ==
=99jd
William Jojo
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> William Jojo wrote:
>
> | Here are a couple of links further describing your findings.
> |
> | http://www.petri.co.il/what_is_port_445_in_w2kxp.htm
> |
> | http://ntsecurity.nu/papers/port445/
> |
> | http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/26709/26709.html
> |
> | I wonder what the Samba developers suggest as a recommended
> | means of setting up both Samba and the clients. (Primarily
> | for our newbee's moving to Samba and such :-) )
>
> Not sure what you mean here, Bill.
>
>
Yeah, that was vague. :-)
We are considering having a line:
smb ports = 445
and leaving out the 139. The defaults for most untouched TCP/IP
configurations in Windows is to use NetBT if the IP is hard coded or no
DHCP option is offered wrt to NetBT.
Both 445 and 139 are connected and 139 dumped in favor of 445 as you
pointed out. That's cool with me, but are there risks in us *choosing* to
only listen on 445, or should Samba admins be encouraged to use only 445
and abandon NetBT. Of course there are other applications that may *need*
139, so perhaps this conversation is in vain :-)
The majority of connections on my server with "netstat -an" show 445, but
there are a *few* using 139.
For exmaple we use Ghost for rapid imaging and I'm researching speed
differentials since moving from 2.2 to 3.0 and from ghost 6->7->8. Perhaps
it has everything to do with 445 vs. 139 connectivity. I'm still
researching that using MS-Client and Samba.
These are the sort of things I and perhaps others are curious about and
unfortunately, I've found limited and/or conflicting information on this
topic and was wondering what the Samba developers thought was good/bad
practice wrt port information and having a happy network.
Thank you, Jerry, for your time.
Bill