sshd/samba fail start with specifc interfaces configured

Bug #117059 reported by kritek
2
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
network-manager (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Low
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: network-manager

sshd:

Upon dist-upgrading from Edgy to Feisty, I noticed sshd wasn't running even though the init script says OK. I had a specific ListenAddress directive set in sshd_config:

ListenAddress 192.168.1.3

To get this to work, I had to rem out ListenAddress and add the following to /etc/default/ssh:

SSHD_OPTS="-4"

I have IPv6 interfaces, and don't want sshd listening on them, which is why I'd set ListenAddress in sshd_config to begin with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
samba:

Using a specific interfaces line in smb.conf, the samba init script reports OK at boot, yet the smbd component isn't running, as shown by ps ax. /var/log/samba/log.smbd reports:

[2007/04/28 22:27:11, 0] lib/interface.c:load_interfaces(225)
  WARNING: no network interfaces found

To get this to work, I'm simply restarting the samba service from rc.local.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems these services are being started before network interfaces are up.

Revision history for this message
kritek (kritek) wrote :

My apologies, I neglected to add that interface is dhcp, not static. Also, inet6 configuration via radvd.

Revision history for this message
Basilio Kublik (sourcercito) wrote :

Hi there
does this means you solve the issue?, i don't really understand what the problem was, if you could test with the live environment of the Desktop CD of the development release - Hardy Heron, would be of great help.

Thanks in advance

Changed in network-manager:
assignee: nobody → sourcercito
importance: Undecided → Low
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
kritek (kritek) wrote : Re: [Bug 117059] Re: sshd/samba fail start with specifc interfaces configured

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Basilio Kublik <email address hidden> wrote:
> Hi there
> does this means you solve the issue?, i don't really understand what the problem was, if you could test with the live environment of the Desktop CD of the development release - Hardy Heron, would be of great help.

The problem was sshd and samba reported being successfully started at
boot, but were in fact not.
The logs from both softwares reported no interfaces to bind to.

I've long since stopped using ubuntu altogether, I'm sorry I cannot
test this CD.

--
aRDy Music and Rick Dicaire present:
http://www.ardynet.com
http://www.ardynet.com:9000/ardymusic.ogg.m3u

Revision history for this message
Basilio Kublik (sourcercito) wrote :

Closing this report since there's no way to solve this issue without all the information required, which won't be provided by the original reporter, and doesn't seems to affect anyone else.

Changed in network-manager:
assignee: sourcercito → nobody
status: Incomplete → Invalid
Revision history for this message
Tim Doty (tdoty) wrote :

It clearly affects others as a quick google will show -- if ListenAddress directive is specified then sshd fails to start citing inability to bind an address. Naively this might seem to be an unlikely case, but using DHCP to acquire a statically allocated IP address is not uncommon.

Was there any attempt to reproduce the reported problem (e.g., specify ListenAddress and reboot)?

What information is needed to get this resolved?

For future google searchers: unless someone decides to address the issue (e.g., network startup returns without waiting for DHCP so services with network dependencies are started before the network is ready and can thus fail) you have to work around this yourself. For example, assigning IP addresses statically, using IP tables to enforce restrictions, or not restricting addresses a service can use.

Revision history for this message
Alexander Sack (asac) wrote :

this bug is marked invalid. if you think you see the same, please test with 0.7 NM in intrepid/jaunty and open a new bug if it still exists there.

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

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.