Re: What does it mean ?????

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello,
So we have to forget it ?

Franck
On 10/20/05, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 10:37 +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote:
> > Philip Prindeville wrote:
> > > Rex Dieter wrote:
> > >
> > >> Franck Y wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I don t know waht does this thing mean.....like the "get_peer_addr "
> > >>>
> > >>> Can you excplain me thk you
> > >>>
> > >>> Oct 20 13:41:09 constellation smbd[3927]: [2005/10/20 13:41:09, 0]
> > >>> lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1150)
> > >>> Oct 20 13:41:09 constellation smbd[3927]:   getpeername failed. Error
> > >>> was Transport endpoint is not connected
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> getpeername failed => failed DNS/hostname lookup.
> > >>
> > >> -- Rex
> > >>
> > >
> > > No, that would be gethostbyaddr().  getpeername() is a system call
> > > that looks for the address of the other side (the remove side) of an
> > > association or socket pair.
> > >
> > > Of course, if you're using connectionless sockets (i.e. datagrams),
> > > then it won't return an endpoint...  For that, you'd have to use
> > > recvfrom() and note the endpoint from individual requests.
> > >
> > > -Philip
> > >
> >
> > OK guys, I've been following this thread, because I've had this error
> > pop up for years. Initially I tried to look it up and fix it. I could
> > never find the true answer and it didn't affect my samba so I ignored it.
> >
> > However, it seems that now you guys actually know what this error means.
> > You've given a technical (programmers?) perspective of what has happened.
> >
> > Is there any chance you can convert that to lamens terms?
> >
> > i.e. Does anyone know how to get rid of the error message or how my
> > configuration for samba is wrong?
> >
> > P.S. I've had this configuration for samba more or less since RH 5.2
> > (meaning I changed things as samba changed). This error did not show up
> > till RH9 or Fedora 1 from memory. It's probably caused by something
> > deprecated or the like in my smb.conf, but do we have any idea what?
> ----
> No - the explanation was correct. Typically this will come from a Win2K
> or WinXP client connection which will simultaneously connect to port 139
> and 445 and drop one or the other as unnecessary - hence the log entry.
> Samba developers sort of consider this to be rude client behavior. ;-)
>
> If you want that type of activity to not be logged, then in the general
> section, declare the smb port...
>
> smb port = 139 #mix of Win95/98/2K/XP as Win95, Win98, WinME only
> connect to port 139
> or
> smb port = 445 #win2K & WinXP clients only
>
> the default is both ports are active for smb
>
> personally, I would recommend that people not concern themselves with
> the logged entries and leave it alone since it isn't broken.
>
> If you want an in depth dissection of the ports that Microsoft uses, see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832017
>
> Craig
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>


--
Franck


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux