Koozali.org: home of the SME Server

getpeername error

Offline widman

  • *
  • 19
  • +0/-0
getpeername error
« on: June 24, 2006, 02:57:09 AM »
I'm getting the following errors in the message log whenever XP machines  are connected on my network.

Quote
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]: [2006/06/23 19:10:02, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000)
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]:   getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]: [2006/06/23 19:10:02, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000)
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]:   getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]: [2006/06/23 19:10:02, 0] lib/access.c:check_access(328)
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]: [2006/06/23 19:10:02, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000)
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]:   getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]:   Denied connection from  (0.0.0.0)
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]: [2006/06/23 19:10:02, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000)
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]:   getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]:   Connection denied from 0.0.0.0
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]: [2006/06/23 19:10:02, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket_data(430)
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]:   write_socket_data: write failure. Error = Connection reset by peer
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]: [2006/06/23 19:10:02, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(455)
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]:   write_socket: Error writing 5 bytes to socket 24: ERRNO = Connection reset by peer
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]: [2006/06/23 19:10:02, 0] lib/util_sock.c:send_smb(647)
Jun 23 19:10:02 server256 smbd[16428]:   Error writing 5 bytes to client. -1. (Connection reset by peer)
Jun 23 19:15:38 server256 kernel: APIC error on CPU0: 40(40)


I'm using 7.0rc3 with no other contribs.  The system runs in server-mode and does not act as a DHCP server.  The server has a fixed IP and the XP clients get dynamic IPs from a linksys router.  I can read and write to the server but still get these errors.

I've found information indicating this is a result of Windows trying to connect to a network share using ports 445 and 139, but this seems to be a fairly old bug.  Is this a current problem and what can I do to alleviate it?

thanks,
pete

Offline crazybob

  • *****
  • 894
  • +0/-0
    • Stalzer R&D
getpeername error
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2006, 06:10:35 AM »
This bug is already listed in the Bug Tracker.
If you think you know whats going on, you obviously have no idea whats going on!

Offline Paperguides

  • ****
  • 118
  • +0/-0
Resolution?
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2006, 04:01:22 PM »
Has this been resolved if not what is the bug # ?

I have a newly installed system at a customer site give the same errors.  The set up is a new install of 7.0 on a new server with the data transfered from a 6.0.1 system by installing the old disk as per the posts here.

Thanks,

Tony
...

Offline byte

  • *
  • 2,183
  • +2/-0
Re: Resolution?
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2006, 04:24:07 PM »
Quote from: "Paperguides"
Has this been resolved if not what is the bug # ?


http://bugs.contribs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1562
--[byte]--

Have you filled in a Bug Report over @ http://bugs.contribs.org ? Please don't wait to be told this way you help us to help you/others - Thanks!

Offline widman

  • *
  • 19
  • +0/-0
Re: Resolution?
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2006, 03:31:16 PM »
Quote from: "Paperguides"
Has this been resolved if not what is the bug # ?

I have a newly installed system at a customer site give the same errors.  The set up is a new install of 7.0 on a new server with the data transfered from a 6.0.1 system by installing the old disk as per the posts here.



I used the fix listed in the bug report and disabled port 445 in smb.conf.  That eliminated the error message.


After the fix, my server ended up being offline for an extended period.  It is now back online and I just finished installing the latest updates.  With the latest updates I do not get the error message.

pete