Iptables – Samba server not visible from Win network

iptablessambaserver-message-blocksmb-conf

Samba 3.5 on Centos 6.3

Synopsis: I set up Samba on my linux host, but none of my Win machines on the subnet can see the host name.


My host name (WOLTEST) does not show up in any of the Win network lists (net view, for example). So, \\WOLTEST\share-name comes back empty-handed

I can ping the Linux ip address (192.168.44.140) from the Win machines, but I cannot get to the share with \\192.168.44.140\share-name.

There are a few similar posts on ServerFault, but none helped.

Here's the relevant parts of my smb.conf:

[global]
workgroup = LANGROUP
server string = Samba Server Version %v

security = user
passdb backend = tdbsam

[web]
path = /volume1/web
writeable = yes
browseable = yes
valid users = michael
guest ok = yes

I also tried "wins support = yes", but it didn't help. There are no wins servers on the LAN.


I ran smbpasswd -a michael

Then I restarted smb & nmb.

Here are the relevant lines from /var/log/messages

[2012/07/30 16:17:05.161348,  0] smbd/server.c:501(smbd_open_one_socket)
 smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2012/07/30 16:17:05.166246,  0] smbd/server.c:501(smbd_open_one_socket)
 smbd_open_once_socket: open_socket_in: Address already in use
[2012/07/30 16:17:38.237999,  0] nmbd/nmbd_become_lmb.c:395(become_local_master_stage2)
*****

Samba name server WOLTEST is now a local master browser for
                 workgroup LANGROUP on subnet 192.168.44.140

I've googled the phrase "Address already in use", and everyone says to ignore it.

The one red flag for me is the phrase "on subnet 192.168.44.140". That IP is not a subnet. It's the IP of the host.

I don't know of any way to change that to subnet 192.168.44.0. But it's not the elected browser, anyway, so I'm not sure it would matter.


SELinux is off

I've searched everywhere and read the samba doc, and I seem to be doing everything right.

Is there something I've missed?


Best Answer

You've covered my usual suspects, but there is one word I didn't see in there and that's iptables. Could it be as easy as not having opened the right holes in the on-by-default firewall? I have had that whack me a time or three.