What does it mean ?????

[Craig White]

Either that or make a better effort to comprehend my answer.

Craig

On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 15:42 -0500, Franck Y wrote:
> Hello,
> So we have to forget it ?
> 
> Franck
> On 10/20/05, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> 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 at redhat.com
> > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Franck
> 
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.