everything functions properly as stated except for the post processing script.  which in my case tries to establish a connection from the sab container to the sickbeard container over port 8081.  i think the issue is simply that the port is not allowed to leave the sab docker container.  i think an allow of that port (or whatever port is configured for sickbeard) will solve the issue.

 

thanks for taking the time to look into this.

 

agreed 100%

everything functions properly as stated except for the post processing script.  which in my case tries to establish a connection from the sab container to the sickbeard container over port 8081.  i think the issue is simply that the port is not allowed to leave the sab docker container.  i think an allow of that port (or whatever port is configured for sickbeard) will solve the issue.

 

thanks for taking the time to look into this.

 

i know what your saying about port 8081 and yes your right its not defined, however i have put in a blanket rule in there that should cover all container to container traffic, its this line:-

 

-A INPUT -s 172.17.0.0/16 -d 172.17.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT

 

and same for output:-

 

-A OUTPUT -s 172.17.0.0/16 -d 172.17.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT

 

so all containers in bridge mode wil have an ip address in the 172.17.x.x range and thus this will allow communication between them via the piggy in the middle, the piggy being your unraid host :-). this worked fine for me in testing when i was doing couchpotato to delugevpn connectivity checks, not sure why the script is having a problem, it might be that the python script is using a lower level module, hmm this is gonna be tricky to diagnose :-(.

 

ok leave it with me, going to do some more testing.

 

oh and btw i have confirmed i CAN talk from sabnzbdvpn to sickbeard via docker container ip, so that is working, still some testing to do:-

 

[root@0a750bfbf398 /]# nc -zv 172.17.0.149 8081

172.17.0.149 8081 (sunproxyadmin) open

 

above shows netcat can see an open port, this is from the sabnzbdvpn container to the ip of the running sickbeard container (172.17.0.149) on the normal port 8081

 

everything functions properly as stated except for the post processing script.  which in my case tries to establish a connection from the sab container to the sickbeard container over port 8081.  i think the issue is simply that the port is not allowed to leave the sab docker container.  i think an allow of that port (or whatever port is configured for sickbeard) will solve the issue.

 

thanks for taking the time to look into this.

 

i know what your saying about port 8081 and yes your right its not defined, however i have put in a blanket rule in there that should cover all container to container traffic, its this line:-

 

-A INPUT -s 172.17.0.0/16 -d 172.17.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT

 

and same for output:-

 

-A OUTPUT -s 172.17.0.0/16 -d 172.17.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT

 

so all containers in bridge mode wil have an ip address in the 172.17.x.x range and thus this will allow communication between them via the piggy in the middle, the piggy being your unraid host :-). this worked fine for me in testing when i was doing couchpotato to delugevpn connectivity checks, not sure why the script is having a problem, it might be that the python script is using a lower level module, hmm this is gonna be tricky to diagnose :-(.

 

ok leave it with me, going to do some more testing.

 

oh and btw i have confirmed i CAN talk from sabnzbdvpn to sickbeard via docker container ip, so that is working, still some testing to do:-

 

[root@0a750bfbf398 /]# nc -zv 172.17.0.149 8081

172.17.0.149 8081 (sunproxyadmin) open

 

above shows netcat can see an open port, this is from the sabnzbdvpn container to the ip of the running sickbeard container (172.17.0.149) on the normal port 8081

 

You have the AutoProcessTV folder from SickBeard with scripts, right? To review? Or do you need someone to post the default SickBeard autoprocess files?

I have what I think is a solution to this, just testing tonight, hope to release tomorrow

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

I have what I think is a solution to this, just testing tonight, hope to release tomorrow

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

Hellz Yeah!!  Thanks!

 

ok in my limited testing that ive been able to do it seems to now allow communication to port 8081 on both the container ip (172.17.x.x) and the unraid host, so this SHOULD now allow the script to talk to sickbeard, give it a whirl, its just been built, if your not seeing the update available then youve hit the unraid bug, please left click the container, select edit, dont change anything and just click save to force the check, let me know the outcome.

ok in my limited testing that ive been able to do it seems to now allow communication to port 8081 on both the container ip (172.17.x.x) and the unraid host, so this SHOULD now allow the script to talk to sickbeard, give it a whirl, its just been built, if your not seeing the update available then youve hit the unraid bug, please left click the container, select edit, dont change anything and just click save to force the check, let me know the outcome.

 

Worked for me on a 1 test! Thanks so much!!! I'll report back if I have any issues

ok in my limited testing that ive been able to do it seems to now allow communication to port 8081 on both the container ip (172.17.x.x) and the unraid host, so this SHOULD now allow the script to talk to sickbeard, give it a whirl, its just been built, if your not seeing the update available then youve hit the unraid bug, please left click the container, select edit, dont change anything and just click save to force the check, let me know the outcome.

 

so far so good.  i can't thank you enough.  can you elaborate at all at what you had to do?

I've done a bit more testing. All successful. You have my very sincere thanks!!

 

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

 

 

Great, can the same be done for couchpotato? Port 5050. Never got postprocessing to work via the script. Probably for above mentioned reason.

 

Loving this docker app by the way!!

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great, can the same be done for couchpotato? Port 5050. Also never got postprocessing to work via the script.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

is there a sab to couchpotato script then?, because if this is from CP to SAB then it should work fine as is, this change was only required as the script used was from SAB to SB and not the other way around.

It is similar. It goes from sab to CP to kickoff postprocessing in CP. SAB triggers the script.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is similar. It goes from sab to CP to kickoff postprocessing in CP. SAB triggers the script.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

hmm ok fair enough i will put in the change, i could see this coming, i hope there arent too many more of these sab driven scripts, every additional port opened is another potential hole in the security i have built to keep the vpn tunnel separate from the lan to stop any chance of ip leakage, its highly unlikely that anybody would connect to their usenet provider over port 5050 or 8081 but it is of concern, at least in my head it is. can i ask what the script is called so i can make a note of it in the comments.

It is similar. It goes from sab to CP to kickoff postprocessing in CP. SAB triggers the script.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

hmm ok fair enough i will put in the change, i could see this coming, i hope there arent too many more of these sab driven scripts, every additional port opened is another potential hole in the security i have built to keep the vpn tunnel separate from the lan to stop any chance of ip leakage, its highly unlikely that anybody would connect to their usenet provider over port 5050 or 8081 but it is of concern, at least in my head it is. can i ask what the script is called so i can make a note of it in the comments.

I think those are the only 2 major ones.

 

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

 

 

Why not a config option with comma separated ports - stating to the user this will open holes in the firewall.  Then if others come along, all they need to do is specify the port number(s)

 

 

Myk

 

 

Why not a config option with comma separated ports - stating to the user this will open holes in the firewall.  Then if others come along, all they need to do is specify the port number(s)

 

 

Myk

 

i did toy with this idea, only issue is the xml used for docker ui doesnt update, so any changes i make are not reflected in what people see in the ui, i might consider this though, just need to make users aware of configuring this incorrectly could lead to potential ip leakage.

Why not a config option with comma separated ports - stating to the user this will open holes in the firewall.  Then if others come along, all they need to do is specify the port number(s)

 

 

Myk

 

i did toy with this idea, only issue is the xml used for docker ui doesnt update, so any changes i make are not reflected in what people see in the ui, i might consider this though, just need to make users aware of configuring this incorrectly could lead to potential ip leakage.

 

Ya that is a pain, but I still think much easier on you - add the notification to the OP support thread - new installs will see it - old installs if asked - we just tell them to re-read OP for additional notes.

 

Don't pull your hair out every time trying to add special port numbers - to me personally - it should be up to the user as it is non standard etc

 

Myk

Why not a config option with comma separated ports - stating to the user this will open holes in the firewall.  Then if others come along, all they need to do is specify the port number(s)

 

 

Myk

 

i did toy with this idea, only issue is the xml used for docker ui doesnt update, so any changes i make are not reflected in what people see in the ui, i might consider this though, just need to make users aware of configuring this incorrectly could lead to potential ip leakage.

 

Ya that is a pain, but I still think much easier on you - add the notification to the OP support thread - new installs will see it - old installs if asked - we just tell them to re-read OP for additional notes.

 

Don't pull your hair out every time trying to add special port numbers - to me personally - it should be up to the user as it is non standard etc

 

Myk

 

ok so ive decided to go for this and have now rebuilt the image with the capacity for the user to define the additional ports required via env var, so if you update please ensure you create a new environment variable called "ADDITIONAL_PORTS" and then set the value to the port(s) you need, if you have more than one port then use a comma to separate the values. i will tidy up the OP with these notes later.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Why not a config option with comma separated ports - stating to the user this will open holes in the firewall.  Then if others come along, all they need to do is specify the port number(s)

 

 

Myk

 

i did toy with this idea, only issue is the xml used for docker ui doesnt update, so any changes i make are not reflected in what people see in the ui, i might consider this though, just need to make users aware of configuring this incorrectly could lead to potential ip leakage.

 

Ya that is a pain, but I still think much easier on you - add the notification to the OP support thread - new installs will see it - old installs if asked - we just tell them to re-read OP for additional notes.

 

Don't pull your hair out every time trying to add special port numbers - to me personally - it should be up to the user as it is non standard etc

 

Myk

 

ok so ive decided to go for this and have now rebuilt the image with the capacity for the user to define the additional ports required via env var, so if you update please ensure you create a new environment variable called "ADDITIONAL_PORTS" and then set the value to the port(s) you need, if you have more than one port then use a comma to separate the values. i will tidy up the OP with these notes later.

Thanks!!! Are any of the previously discussed ports already enabled, or should we define them all manually?

 

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

 

 

I would define them manually to be safe

 

 

Myk

 

 

I would define them manually to be safe

 

 

Myk

 

ok ive written a new FAQ for this, see post 2 of this thread FAQ Q2, just to confirm yes you will now need to use this env variable if you want to use any post processing script from SAB, any questions let me know guys.

 

Myk - appreciate your feedback, always nice to bounce ideas around 

Myk - appreciate your feedback, always nice to bounce ideas around 

 

Hey you have help me out so much its the LEAST I can do

 

Myk

I can't seem to get this version to run.  Docker installs but won't start.  I know there's an issue with the PPA and the auto update but does this affect a first time install?  Does this image need to be rolled back to the previous SABnzbd version?  SabnzbdVPN log is blank and UnRAID log doesn't show any errors.

I can't seem to get this version to run.  Docker installs but won't start.  I know there's an issue with the PPA and the auto update but does this affect a first time install?  Does this image need to be rolled back to the previous SABnzbd version?  SabnzbdVPN log is blank and UnRAID log doesn't show any errors.

I'm still not seeing an update available... how did you update?

 

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk