Shorewall users - Mar 2005 - smb, vmware trouble?

Dear all


We are using a definition of rules which has perfectly worked with SuSE8.2 and 
vmware and a local samba on some clients.

The systems got an update to 9.2.

Now we got a very strange problem which probably could belong to an firewall 
definition problem. 
After booting of the system the samba connection to vmware works perfect but a 
few hours later it isn''t possible to copy a file to the vmware share.
But it
is possible to move a file. In the log files I see a lot of error message 
about broadcasting to the samba net adress 

Is this a known problem any hints are welcome.

Reimar Bauer

-- 
Forschungszentrum Juelich
email: R.Bauer@fz-juelich.de
http://www.fz-juelich.de/icg/icg-i/
=================================================================a IDL library
at ForschungsZentrum Juelich
http://www.fz-juelich.de/icg/icg-i/idl_icglib/idl_lib_intro.html

Reimar Bauer wrote:
> Dear all
> 
> 
> We are using a definition of rules which has perfectly worked with SuSE8.2
and
> vmware and a local samba on some clients.
> 
> The systems got an update to 9.2.
> 
> Now we got a very strange problem which probably could belong to an
firewall
> definition problem. 
> After booting of the system the samba connection to vmware works perfect
but a
> few hours later it isn''t possible to copy a file to the vmware
share. But it
> is possible to move a file. In the log files I see a lot of error message 
> about broadcasting to the samba net adress 
> 
> Is this a known problem any hints are welcome.
>From what little you''ve told us, I couldn''t even begin to
guess where
the problem is other than to say that Shorewall-related problems don''t
exhibit the behavior you mention (works for a few hours and then stops
working).

-Tom
-- 
Tom Eastep    \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
Shoreline,     \ http://shorewall.net
Washington USA  \ teastep@shorewall.net
PGP Public Key   \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key

On 17 Mar 2005 at 14:04, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Reimar Bauer wrote:
> > Dear all
> > 
> > 
> > We are using a definition of rules which has perfectly worked 
with
> > SuSE8.2 and vmware and a local samba on some clients.
> > 
> > The systems got an update to 9.2.
> > 
> > Now we got a very strange problem which probably could belong to 
an
> > firewall definition problem. After booting of the system the 
samba
> > connection to vmware works perfect but a few hours later it
isn''t
> > possible to copy a file to the vmware share. But it is possible 
to
> > move a file. In the log files I see a lot of error message about
> > broadcasting to the samba net adress 
> > 
> > Is this a known problem any hints are welcome.
> 
> >From what little you''ve told us, I couldn''t even
begin to guess
where
> the problem is other than to say that Shorewall-related problems 
don''t
> exhibit the behavior you mention (works for a few hours and then 
stops
> working).
> 
> -Tom
However, windows networking is flaky enough that it might
drop connections that work initially and then start having 
packets filtered later after shorewall starts.  

It would be helpful to have the messages that were in the log
and also to compare the starup sequence of services in
his runlevel editor between SuSE 8.2 and 9.2.

I use this same mix (SuSE Host for Vmware, Windows
Guests) with shorwall and have had a very stable environment
for some time in my development laptop.  

I initially had to mess around with the run-level editor and adjust
the sequence of Vmware and Shorewall startup, and posted about it
in this list and the SuSE list.  Windows guests might seem to work
but then fail if Shorewall is started after the guests are up and
running.  RFC1819 handling is another trap for vmware users.


-- 
______________________________________
John Andersen
NORCOM / Juneau, Alaska
http://www.screenio.com/
(907) 790-3386

.

John S. Andersen wrote:
> 
> However, windows networking is flaky enough that it might
> drop connections that work initially and then start having 
> packets filtered later after shorewall starts.  
True -- if a connection that existed before Shorewall started was lost,
recreation of the connection might fail. There should be a record of
that in the "Shorewall log" (most likely drops or rejects on TCP port
139).
> 
> It would be helpful to have the messages that were in the log
> and also to compare the starup sequence of services in
> his runlevel editor between SuSE 8.2 and 9.2.
It would be useful to have ANY concrete information (log messages,
"shorewall status" output, etc.). See
http://shorewall.net/support.htm.
> 
> I initially had to mess around with the run-level editor and adjust
> the sequence of Vmware and Shorewall startup, and posted about it
> in this list and the SuSE list.  Windows guests might seem to work
> but then fail if Shorewall is started after the guests are up and
> running.  RFC1819 handling is another trap for vmware users.
> 
Unless there was a change in Shorewall versions as part of the upgrade
(which the OP didn''t mention), then I wouldn''t suspect an RFC
1918 problem.

-Tom
-- 
Tom Eastep    \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
Shoreline,     \ http://shorewall.net
Washington USA  \ teastep@shorewall.net
PGP Public Key   \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key