Karmic-Networking (SAMBA) just does not work, even with detailed attention.

Bug #456808 reported by emarkay on 2009-10-20
66
This bug affects 12 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
samba (Ubuntu)
Low
Unassigned
Nominated for Karmic by JG

Bug Description

Binary package hint: samba

I have been tryiong to get my 3 PC's networked, for the past few Ubuntu releases, with no success. As I have more experience with Ubuntu than most novice users, this may indicate something that needs substantial attention for Lucid. I don't expect a Windows Wizard, with an "out of the box" instant connection, but there is still way too much CLI as well as educated guessing in what should be a straightforward process. I know the network works, because I can get them connected in Windows XP.

I have "system-config-samba", "winbind" and "smbfs" installed. I have confirmed my "workgroup" names are identical, and added the "netbios name" to all, also. In "Samba Server Configuration" the specific folders are all shared (indicated in Nautilus with share icon on folder) and is "Read/Write, Visible".

When I go to "Places > Network", "Windows Shares on <workgroup>" I click and eventually only see one machine - this one.

I have seen DBus error org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.InvalidArgs: Mountpoint Already registered." occasionally but always get the infamous "Unable to mount location. Failed to retrieve share list from server" everytime. Once, recently I did see one of the machine's names, but when I clicked on it, I then got the "share list" error.

All are Karmic (beta) updated machines, but this has been through Jaunty back to about Dapper for me.

This is the procedure I have used on all 3 machines:

"1. sudo ufw disable

2. gksu gedit /etc/default/ufw
Find and change to this: IPT_MODULES="nf_conntrack_ftp nf_nat_ftp nf_conntrack_irc nf_nat_irc nf_conntrack_netbios_ns"

3. sudo ifconfig | grep Bcast
Look for "inet addr: and replace last segment of this IP address with "0/24". In my case it's: 192.xxx.x.0/24. Now do:
sudo ufw allow proto udp to any port 137 from 192.xxx.x.0/24
sudo ufw allow proto udp to any port 138 from 192.xxx.x.0/24
sudo ufw allow proto udp to any port 139 from 192.xxx.x.0/24
sudo ufw allow proto udp to any port 445 from 192.xxx.x.0/24

4. Enable and confirm: sudo ufw enable | sudo ufw status

5. Add a user to the Database or change an existing user's password (as root) with smbpasswd:
sudo smbpasswd -a <username>
New SMB password: ######
Retype new SMB password: ######

6. Confirm with: sudo pdbedit -L

7. Paste this stanza into smb.conf:
[global]
workgroup = WORKGROUP_NAME
netbios name = NETBIOS_NAME
server string =
name resolve order = bcast host lmhosts wins
preferred master = no

printing = cups
printcap name = cups
printcap cache time = 750
cups options = raw
load printers = yes
use client driver = yes
[printers]
comment = All Printers
path = /var/spool/samba
printable = Yes
create mask = 0700
browseable = No
guest ok = Yes
[print$]
comment = Printer Drivers
path = /var/lib/samba/printers
browseable = yes
read only = yes
guest ok = no

8. Each share is defined in a separate stanza in smb.conf. - In my case it's: path = /home/<username>/XXXX_Shared-"X"
[ShareName]
path = /path_to/shared_directory
read only = no

9. Then: sudo chmod 1777 /path_to/shared_directory

10. Restart Samba: sudo /etc/init.d/samba restart."

Again, this is not even attempting to network alternate OS's , this is strictly Karmic to Karmic to Karmic.

Chuck Short (zulcss) wrote :

What happens when you disable ufw?

Regards
chuck

Changed in samba (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Low
status: New → Incomplete
emarkay (mrk) wrote :

Chuck, that's "Step One". Is that correctly formatted?
 Shouldn't that be a native part of Samba Configuration since I understand UFW is installed and activated by default? This example is one of the reasons I, and many others, are having troubles with Ubuntu Networking (as evidenced on the Ubuntu Forums).

emarkay (mrk) wrote :

Also, what is "Incomplete" about this report or issue, as indicated by yis change in Status?

Thierry Carrez (ttx) wrote :

What are you using "winbind" for exactly ?

Thierry Carrez (ttx) wrote :

Also do you manage to access the shares by typing directly "smb://IPADDRESS/sharename" in the Nautilus location bar ? If yes, does "smb://MACHINENAME/sharename" work ?

Chuck Short (zulcss) wrote :

@emarkay:

Yes that is the first step

You should just able to do sudo ufw allow samba as well. Also assuming that all three of your computers are apart of the same workgroup. What does /var/log/samba/log.smbd and /var/log/log.nmd say (if you can attach those as well) Also can you attach the output of testparm

Thanks
chuck

emarkay (mrk) wrote :
Download full text (9.3 KiB)

#4: Winbind, because somewhere it was recommended to have installed.

#5:

1. "smb://192.168.x.xxx/sharename" in Nautilus (Ctrl-L) gives: the shared directory on this machine only, after entering my share password.

2. "smb://<name of thus PC>/sharename"gives: the shared directory on this machine only, after entering my share password.

3. "smb://<name of a remote PC>/sharename" gives: "Could not display "smb://wings/sharename/". Error: Failed to mount Windows share. Please select another viewer and try again."

#6:

1. Output of /var/log/samba/log.smbd:

 "[2009/10/18 12:44:36, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/10/18 12:44:37, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/10/18 12:44:37, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/10/18 12:52:59, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/10/18 12:52:59, 0] printing/print_cups.c:103(cups_connect)
  Unable to connect to CUPS server localhost:631 - Connection refused
[2009/10/18 12:52:59, 0] printing/print_cups.c:103(cups_connect)
  Unable to connect to CUPS server localhost:631 - Connection refused
[2009/10/18 15:41:10, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/10/18 15:41:11, 0] printing/print_cups.c:103(cups_connect)
  Unable to connect to CUPS server localhost:631 - Connection refused
[2009/10/18 15:41:11, 0] printing/print_cups.c:103(cups_connect)
  Unable to connect to CUPS server localhost:631 - Connection refused
[2009/10/18 15:41:12, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/10/18 15:41:12, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/10/18 16:09:35, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/10/18 16:09:37, 0] printing/print_cups.c:103(cups_connect)
  Unable to connect to CUPS server localhost:631 - Connection refused
[2009/10/18 16:09:37, 0] printing/print_cups.c:103(cups_connect)
  Unable to connect to CUPS server localhost:631 - Connection refused
[2009/10/18 16:09:39, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/10/18 16:09:39, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/10/19 09:16:07, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/10/19 09:16:08, 0] printing/print_cups.c:103(cups_connect)
  Unable to connect to CUPS server localhost:631 - Connection refused
[2009/10/19 09:16:08, 0] printing/print_cups.c:103(cups_connect)
  Unable to connect to CUPS server localhost:631 - Connection refused
[2009/10/19 16:42:42, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0...

Read more...

Thierry Carrez (ttx) wrote :

#4 Re:"Winbind, because somewhere it was recommended to have installed."
<<winbind is a component of the Samba suite of programs that solves the unified logon problem. Winbind uses a UNIX implementation of Microsoft RPC calls, Pluggable Authentication Modules (PAMs), and the name service switch (NSS) to allow Windows NT domain users to appear and operate as UNIX users on a UNIX machine>>

I fail to see how winbind can help in your scenario (since you don't use a Windows domain) and I can certainly imagine how it can lead you to failure if badly configured.

Please try with just "samba" installed, and not "winbind".

#5 What does "smb://<IP of a remote PC>/sharename" return ?

#6 2. it's /var/log/samba/log.nmbd. And we need those of the remote PC, the one that you're trying to connect to and fail.

I'm still trying to figure out what exact bug you're reporting here, apart from general failure to configure SMB networking on your machines, and how much simpler this should be (which is not a bug). I suppose it's the "can't access remote PC via smb:// in Nautilus, while I can access it just fine locally". If I got it right, could you:

1/ try accessing the share using smbclient rather than Nautilus ? Try smbclient //remote_system/share_name
2/ try to define "guest ok = yes" in your share to rule out account name issues.

emarkay (mrk) wrote :

#8: Regarding Winbind, all 3 machines ALSO have Win XPSP3 (NTFS) and I do want and expect to be able to connect to those when booted as such. But you now see all the "bogus" and misleading info that is "out there" and we NEED to have Lucid address this!

Thierry, I will get the additional information in an hour or so, but your statement: "I'm still trying to figure out what exact bug you're reporting here," needs clarification:

There are many, many many users of Ubuntu that have problems with networking (Google it or just look at the messageboards.). it MUST be as "simple" as Microsoft has configured it, for "noobs" and businesses alike, or this will ALWAYS be a negative for Ubuntu.

Just use "Bug Number One" as a reason!

emarkay (mrk) wrote :
Download full text (6.1 KiB)

#8:
1. Winbind uninstalled vua Synaptic.

2. $ smb://192.168.x.xxx/sharename
bash: smb://192.168.x1.xxx/sharename: No such file or directory

3. /var/log/samba/log.nmbd
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 1:39 PM
> [2009/10/18 13:34:03, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd.c:71(terminate)
> Got SIGTERM: going down...
> [2009/10/18 13:37:35, 0] nmbd/nmbd.c:854(main)
> nmbd version 3.4.0 started.
> Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team
> 1992-2009
> [2009/10/18 13:37:35, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd.c:693(open_sockets)
> [2009/10/18 14:07:06, 0] nmbd/nmbd.c:854(main)
> nmbd version 3.4.0 started.
> Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team
> 1992-2009
> [2009/10/18 14:07:08, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_mynames.c:35(my_name_register_failed)
> my_name_register_failed: Failed to register my name
> DESKTOP<20> on subnet 192.168.1.102.
> [2009/10/18 14:07:08, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_namelistdb.c:307(standard_fail_register)
> standard_fail_register: Failed to register/refresh
> name DESKTOP<20> on subnet 192.168.1.102
> [2009/10/18 14:07:08, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_mynames.c:35(my_name_register_failed)
> my_name_register_failed: Failed to register my name
> DESKTOP<03> on subnet 192.168.1.102.
> [2009/10/18 14:07:08, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_namelistdb.c:307(standard_fail_register)
> standard_fail_register: Failed to register/refresh
> name DESKTOP<03> on subnet 192.168.1.102
> [2009/10/18 14:07:08, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_mynames.c:35(my_name_register_failed)
> my_name_register_failed: Failed to register my name
> DESKTOP<00> on subnet 192.168.1.102.
> [2009/10/18 14:07:08, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_namelistdb.c:307(standard_fail_register)
> standard_fail_register: Failed to register/refresh
> name DESKTOP<00> on subnet 192.168.1.102
> [2009/10/18 14:07:25, 0] nmbd/nmbd.c:71(terminate)
> Got SIGTERM: going down...
> [2009/10/18 15:29:59, 0] nmbd/nmbd.c:854(main)
> nmbd version 3.4.0 started.
> Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team
> 1992-2009
> [2009/10/18 15:29:59, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_subnetdb.c:206(create_subnets)
> create_subnets: No local IPv4 non-loopback
> interfaces !
> [2009/10/18 15:29:59, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_subnetdb.c:207(create_subnets)
> create_subnets: Waiting for an interface to appear
> ...
> [2009/10/18 15:30:11, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_mynames.c:35(my_name_register_failed)
> my_name_register_failed: Failed to register my name
> DESKTOP<20> on subnet 192.168.1.102.
> [2009/10/18 15:30:11, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_namelistdb.c:307(standard_fail_register)
> standard_fail_register: Failed to register/refresh
> name DESKTOP<20> on subnet 192.168.1.102
> [2009/10/18 15:30:11, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_mynames.c:35(my_name_register_failed)
> my_name_register_failed: Failed to register my name
> DESKTOP<03> on subnet 192.168.1.102.
> [2009/10/18 15:30:11, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_namelistdb.c:307(standard_fail_register)
> standard_fail_register: Failed to register/refresh
> name DESKTOP<03> on subnet 192.168.1.102
> [2009/10/18 15:30:11, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_mynames.c:35(my_name_register_failed)
> my_name_register_failed: Failed to register my name
> DESKTOP<00> on subnet 192.168.1.102.
> [2009/10/18 15:30:11, 0]
> nmbd/nmbd_namelistdb.c:307(standard_fail_register)
> standard_fail_register: Failed to register/re...

Read more...

emarkay (mrk) wrote :

Again, what is "Incomplete" on this Bug submission?

Changed in samba (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → Confirmed

My bad -- I didn't mean to mark this Confirmed -- it stays Incomplete.

emarkay, this bug is marked Incomplete because we need more information in order to be able to understand and potentially fix the problem you're experiencing.

There's a number of things we'd need to know:

- What happens if you disable ufw, and leave it disabled as you try to see the shares, does it work?
- What about if you type smb://<ip of another machine among the three>/<sharename> in Nautilus. Can you see the share?

I'm curious as to this issue since I'm seeing a similar problem on a server where Samba was just installed (through tasksel and selecting Samba server), reported here: bug #458671

Changed in samba (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Incomplete
Thierry Carrez (ttx) wrote :

@emarkay:

1/ Windbind is used to integrate with Windows domains. It is not useful to access SMB shares on individual workstations being part of a common workgroup.

2/ The main issue you're reporting here is how much easier it should be to set up shared files through Windows SMB networking on Ubuntu. Launchpad bugs are not used to track such generic bugs (bug #1 being an exception), but rather specific issues. You should use the Ubuntu Brainstorm site for this request.

3/ The method you're using is *not* the recommended, simplest way to do it. Doing it through samba manual configuration requires a good understanding on how samba works, as this is a very complex piece of software. Your remarks 4 and 5 in comment 10 seem to show you're underdocumented in that area.

4/ I'd recommend using the existing tools integrated on the Ubuntu Desktop instead (right-click on a folder in Nautilus and select "Share options"). That's the recommended, dead-simple way of doing it. Unfortunately your tries at a manual samba/winbind setup might now interfere with this feature working correctly. I'd recommend you purge samba samba-common winbind from synaptic before you try to enable the shares in Nautilus.

emarkay (mrk) wrote :

First, sorry about "sharename" - I didn't even know about that - I guess "ShareName" is the default?
Second - I notice that the folders I have made as "shared" are no longer, on both machines - I reenabled them - I did not know when and how this had happened.

#12:
1. Type in "Location" in Nautilus: "smb://192.168.x.xxx/ShareName" gets this:
"Could not display "smb://192.168.x.xxx/sharename/".
Error: Failed to mount Windows share
Please select another viewer and try again."

2." $ sudo ufw disable
[sudo] password xxxx: xxxx
Firewall stopped and disabled on system startup"
and repeating the above gets the same response.

#13
:2 No the issue is, "It doesn't work!" - the suggestions are added as a reference, and have no bearing on the actual issue.

:3 Well I took the information direct from the Ubuntu Wiki, and the Ubuntu Messageboards, as well as prior experiments from other online sources - this validates my "suggestions" and leads to the conclusion that a/the problem may also then be (emphasized) the "underdocumentation" as well!

*****
Comments indicate possible "operator error" and therefore I am going to reload a fresh install of the Karmic RC on both machines. (I wanted to do this at the release anyway to test, but I can use the RC today.) After a successful boot and update/upgrade, I will then do nothing except what I have documented here,
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1287543
on both machines, AND create a directory/folder on each machine that is indicated as "shared" in Nautilus.

Please then give me a specific procedure to test. This should identify if it's "operator error" or "Ubuntu error". I expect to have this completed in a few hours, and when I see procedures here to test, I will make those first priority today.

MRK

emarkay (mrk) wrote :

I have 2 "virgin" Karmic machines now, waiting to test.
Let's pretend I am a new Ubuntuite and want to have 2 PC's communicate in Ubuntu and Windows XP.
If there is a bug we'll uncover it and if there is a config issue we'll clarify it, and in the end, there will be a legit and validated tutorial on Samba Networking for all.
Email or let's get started here.

bwat47 (bwat47) wrote :

I have a fresh install of karmic and no dice. This worked perfectly in previous versions. This is a bug with samba and nothing to do with user error.

emarkay (mrk) wrote :

Well?
If not for Karmic, then for Lucid!

Thierry Carrez (ttx) wrote :

Converting to a question since the reporter asks for the recommended way to share files in Ubuntu.

Changed in samba (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → Invalid

After upgrading to Karmic I have exactly the same problem. This is an very serious problem. Samba is completely useless and there is even no workaround mentioned here. How can this be classified as invalid/low?

I'm going to downgrade now...

Bye
Joern

Download full text (4.1 KiB)

Just out of curiosity, is preferred master set to "no" on all of the
computers? Who is winning bcast elections?

- Scott

Joern Schimmelpfeng wrote:
> After upgrading to Karmic I have exactly the same problem. This is an
> very serious problem. Samba is completely useless and there is even no
> workaround mentioned here. How can this be classified as invalid/low?
>
> I'm going to downgrade now...
>
> Bye
> Joern
>
>> Karmic-Networking (SAMBA) just does not work, even with detailed attention.
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/456808
>> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
>> Directory Services, which is subscribed to samba in ubuntu.
>>
>> Status in “samba” package in Ubuntu: Invalid
>>
>> Bug description:
>> Binary package hint: samba
>>
>> I have been tryiong to get my 3 PC's networked, for the past few Ubuntu releases, with no success. As I have more experience with Ubuntu than most novice users, this may indicate something that needs substantial attention for Lucid. I don't expect a Windows Wizard, with an "out of the box" instant connection, but there is still way too much CLI as well as educated guessing in what should be a straightforward process. I know the network works, because I can get them connected in Windows XP.
>>
>> I have "system-config-samba", "winbind" and "smbfs" installed. I have confirmed my "workgroup" names are identical, and added the "netbios name" to all, also. In "Samba Server Configuration" the specific folders are all shared (indicated in Nautilus with share icon on folder) and is "Read/Write, Visible".
>>
>> When I go to "Places > Network", "Windows Shares on <workgroup>" I click and eventually only see one machine - this one.
>>
>> I have seen DBus error org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.InvalidArgs: Mountpoint Already registered." occasionally but always get the infamous "Unable to mount location. Failed to retrieve share list from server" everytime. Once, recently I did see one of the machine's names, but when I clicked on it, I then got the "share list" error.
>>
>> All are Karmic (beta) updated machines, but this has been through Jaunty back to about Dapper for me.
>>
>> This is the procedure I have used on all 3 machines:
>>
>> "1. sudo ufw disable
>>
>> 2. gksu gedit /etc/default/ufw
>> Find and change to this: IPT_MODULES="nf_conntrack_ftp nf_nat_ftp nf_conntrack_irc nf_nat_irc nf_conntrack_netbios_ns"
>>
>> 3. sudo ifconfig | grep Bcast
>> Look for "inet addr: and replace last segment of this IP address with "0/24". In my case it's: 192.xxx.x.0/24. Now do:
>> sudo ufw allow proto udp to any port 137 from 192.xxx.x.0/24
>> sudo ufw allow proto udp to any port 138 from 192.xxx.x.0/24
>> sudo ufw allow proto udp to any port 139 from 192.xxx.x.0/24
>> sudo ufw allow proto udp to any port 445 from 192.xxx.x.0/24
>>
>> 4. Enable and confirm: sudo ufw enable | sudo ufw status
>>
>> 5. Add a user to the Database or change an existing user's password (as root) with smbpasswd:
>> sudo smbpasswd -a <username>
>> New SMB password: ######
>> Retype new SMB password: ######
>>
>> 6. Confirm with: sudo pdbedit -L
>>
>> 7. Paste this stanza into smb.conf:
>> [global]
>> workgroup = WORKG...

Read more...

floid (jkanowitz) wrote :

Related observations, as I try to stalk down the Launchpad bug that surely must exist for the apparent CUPS/samba Upstart race*:

Nautilus will show browsable items via smb://ip_address or smb://dns_name (where, if anyone is confused, ip_address would be e.g. 192.168.1.64 and dns_name could be mymachine.local - or localhost for 127.0.0.1);

Whichever SMB stack Nautilus is using does *not* seem to be doing netbios name resolution properly at the moment, at least on my machine and network. This is made confusing because it does retrieve the browse tree of workgroups and netbios names, but falls over with a less-than-descriptive error ("Unable to mount location, Failed to retrieve share list from server" - well, yes, but apparently because it's not finding the proper address for the server) if you double-click on any individual host.

So, for determinism in testing, you might want to stick with IP addresses there.

* The apparent race is evidenced by log.smbd entries such as:
[2009/12/10 11:26:10, 0] printing/print_cups.c:103(cups_connect)
  Unable to connect to CUPS server localhost:631 - Connection refused
after a reboot, so you're probably also better off testing with shared folders than with printers [which, if you're relying on samba to pick up from CUPS, won't appear until you give samba a restart so it can talk to a CUPS that's finished loading].

Alan Lord (theopensourcerer) wrote :
Download full text (3.2 KiB)

I have installed and set up several Samba networks in the past on Ubuntu servers and desktops.

ON a new Karmic desktop machine I am experiencing similar problems.

In the log.smbd I see lines such as:

[2009/12/17 18:28:11, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/12/17 18:28:11, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/12/17 18:28:11, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/12/17 18:30:23, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/12/17 18:30:23, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/12/17 18:30:23, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/12/17 18:32:00, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/12/17 18:32:00, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/12/17 18:32:00, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/12/17 18:33:06, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/12/17 18:33:06, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/12/17 18:33:06, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/12/17 18:33:43, 0] smbd/server.c:1068(main)
  smbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/12/17 18:33:44, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2009/12/17 18:33:44, 0] smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use

In log.nmbd nothing major.

  *****
[2009/12/17 18:33:40, 0] nmbd/nmbd.c:71(terminate)
  Got SIGTERM: going down...
[2009/12/17 18:33:43, 0] nmbd/nmbd.c:854(main)
  nmbd version 3.4.0 started.
  Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2009
[2009/12/17 18:33:43, 0] nmbd/nmbd_nameregister.c:491(register_name)
  register_name: NetBIOS name LIBERTUS-COGNATIO is too long. Truncating to LIBERTUS-COGNAT
[2009/12/17 18:33:43, 0] nmbd/nmbd_nameregister.c:491(register_name)
  register_name: NetBIOS name LIBERTUS-COGNATIO is too long. Truncating to LIBERTUS-COGNAT
[2009/12/17 18:33:43, 0] nmbd/nmbd_nameregister.c:491(register_name)
  register_name: NetBIOS name LIBERTUS-COGNATIO is too long. Truncating to LIBERTUS-COGNAT
[2009/12/17 18:34:06, 0] nmbd/nmbd_become_lmb.c:395(become_local_master_stage2)
  *****
  Samba name server LIBERTUS-COGNATIO is now a local master browser for workgroup G604T_WIRELESS on subnet 192.168.1.251
  *****

But the Windows machines are unable to see the machi...

Read more...

bwat47 (bwat47) wrote :

Pretty sad this is marked as low importance. Networking with windows computers simply does not work for most people, pretty big thing to overlook.

JG (mail-juliangamble) wrote :

This is an issue in the default install of Karmic. Functionality that was in Jaunty has been removed. This affects the reputation and the commercial viability of Ubuntu.

emarkay (mrk) wrote :

Editorial: Just amazed - I even got blasted on the forums on this - as if it's my issue only... There were others there, as here, with the exact problem. Maybe Mark S. was correct in "abandoning ship" (the owner of the company that created Ubuntu.)

I think the days of intelligent developers and competent programmers here are gone; they have fallen to the level of the Windows world - "Dog and Pony" effects and ignorance of core issues.

BTW, still can't network Karmic to Karmic - I did get a Windows XPSP3 to Karmic connection, but I don't use Windows anymore (it was just a test) so that's useless...

Sad, pathetic and yet, so predictable; welcome to 2010.

david (southern-david) wrote :

Well I'm having the same problem with Samba; loaded on an Ubuntu-server, trying to connect to a windows 7 netbook and a Kubuntu desktop machine. This was setup and worked until recently. Now I have no connection to my Windows 7 netbook. My Kubuntu machine connects to the server via a very reliable NFS connection.
I've cleared IP tables on the server, wrote a new smb.conf file and re-installed samba all without any connection. findsmb shows nothing from my kubu machine but running (on the server) smbclient -L shows shares listed on the server. Testparm the smb.conf with no errors - clients simply do not see the smb server!!

I'd just like to say to emarkay; I understand your frustration BUT these guys do a great job! slagging them off openly here is not fair to them!

emarkay (mrk) wrote :

Correct. Apology offered. My bad.

Still, can't understand why this is lower priority than "cloud", 3d graphics, login sound, and other "fluff" issues, whereas this is a fundamental flaw a core part of the operating system; and it's not just an isolated, individual issue.

Maybe it is "operator error", maybe not, but Ubuntu Networking does not, and has not been able to just "plug and play", nor are there any updated or authorized "instructions" to reference. I did my best on this, it's beyond me now.

david (southern-david) wrote :

It is strange that this has low importance considering the comments here and the people it affects! I've been reading through some of the other samba, nmbd bugs and they do not seem to be as important as this one. please can someone upgrade this?

Dylan McCall (dylanmccall) wrote :

I guess I should point out that this bug no longer affects me (for quite a while), it seems after updates a while into Karmic's stable release. Unfortunately, I was never able to pinpoint what changed, but I am still watching this with interest. Has anyone confirmed the regression recently?

One change on my end is that the other computers on my network are now all running Windows 7 (was a mix, before).

Oh, and Emarkay: Apology accepted on my end, but I still feel I should correct you on something. Mark hasn't "jumped ship"; it's just that Canonical has a new (and talented) CEO, allowing Mark to focus more of the Ubuntu community itself. Quite the opposite, really :)
Feel free to interpret it all as you wish, but I sense the information reached you in a diluted state.

Thierry Carrez (ttx) wrote :

This doesn't have "low importance", this is invalid as a bug report.

Saying "samba is too damn complicated, underdocumented, error-prone and dependent of other network characteristics to be easily used as a default file sharing solution" is true, but it's not a bug. Nor is "samba is not working for me".

I perfectly agree that file sharing could use a lot of simplification and that effort should be spent on that. There is not a single bug that, if fixed, would make it work for everyone. As a gathering point for every single user that failed to setup file sharing in karmic, this bug is useless. It's perfectly working for most people. There is a variety of specific bugs or missing documentation, each different, that prevents you from completing a file sharing setup. Sometimes it's samba that doesn't play nice with your DNS, sometimes it's samba not starting etc. If you can point to a specific issue that is reproducible, file a new bug rather than adding your "samba fails for me as well" comment here. In parallel, adding your voice to brainstorm.ubuntu.com on how much we should make file sharing simpler could help.

Filing fuzzy bugs and insulting developers is not the preferred way to go. There are plenty of other important, well-detailed and politely-filed bugs we can spend our limited efforts on.

JG (mail-juliangamble) wrote :

With respect Thierry - the bug is not "I'm too ignorant to get it working" - the bug is "It was working on Jaunty and it stopped on Karmic".

Thierry Carrez (ttx) wrote :

@JG: Reading the original description, the bug is "I have been tryiong to get my 3 PC's networked, for the past few Ubuntu releases, with no success". Not a karmic regression. You're experiencing a different bug, and should have filed a different bugreport.

david (southern-david) wrote :

I don't think anyone meant to insult the developers here, far from it! we all respect the expertise you offer! Sometimes frustration causes the best of us to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.
However, I added to the bug because there are at least two other users here with an identifiable error; that being their samba log reports. I have exactly the same error;

smbd/server.c:456(smbd_open_one_socket)
  smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use

I have used samba for some time and spent quite some time trying to solve the problem - as mentioned previously, I've testparmed the conf file with no errors.
made a new conf file.
pinged every computer (successfully)
re-installed samba
cleared iptables on all machines

smbclient -L shows the shares served by the server (on the server)
using findsmb from clients show nothing shared.

justinc (justin-conover) wrote :

I've had many of the same issues reported in this Bug report over the last couple of days since I installed 9.10. One thing I've noticed is I can connect to my share from a secondary user from my macbook pro. If I try the primary user that was created during the install, also has sudo all access the user doesn't get authenticated.

Could this be a PAM/security issue?

emarkay (mrk) wrote :

Can we get this marked as NOT "Invalid" and "Low" priority??

justinc (justin-conover) wrote :

I just created a new user and he works fine, it appears that it is the primary/sudo user that doesn't get authenticated.

david (southern-david) wrote :

Thanks justinc! I'll try that tomorrow!

JG (mail-juliangamble) wrote :

Just wanted to say thanks for all your help. The Ubuntu Community is awesome. I finally got mine working. This was the answer: http://thedaneshproject.com/posts/vista-not-working-with-dhcp/

Patrick Martin (pjlmartin) wrote :

I confirm justinc entry:
I just created a new user and he works fine, it appears that it is the primary/sudo user that doesn't get authenticated.

Thierry Carrez (ttx) wrote :

@justinc, Patrick Martin: could you try changing the password for the primary/sudo user to see if it changes anything ? libpam-smbpass theorically synchronizes the system password with the samba password (when the user is first created, when the password is changed, and at login time), but there may be an issue there.

justinc (justin-conover) wrote :

Alright, I've figured out some of my weirdness... I tried my netbook that runs ubuntu, it connects to the desktop with samba. I tried my wife's windows desktop, it connects to the desktop running samba. I tried from a Centos 5.4 server/desktop and it connected to the desktop running samba. I tried an arch desktop, guess what? Yeah, it connected....

So the moral of my story is a MAC OS X 10.6 desktop can't connect with this user but can a different user so I'm going to have to figure that out from the MAC side.

Sorry... :)

Patrick Martin (pjlmartin) wrote :

Hello,
I tried changing the password of my "main" account, but got the same issue.
The second account i created can still connect.
Following justinc comment, my client machine is running Vista...
Rgds,

david (southern-david) wrote :

Somehow my Samba server changed to a PDC. I noticed after tesparming the conf file. When I changed it back to standalone, I could see my shares again!
I was about to give up as well!!

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Bug attachments