Re: [PATCH 1/2] ksmbd: update documentation

From: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
To: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>, atheik <atteh.mailbox@gmail.com>,
	Hyeoncheol Lee <hyc.lee@gmail.com>,
	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>,
	CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ksmbd: update documentation
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 17:24:20 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH2r5muR48e+x1DNiV3=oRvwBC6exW6Xg_bGVfu2OGQovqUoQA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b6a1bc91-0aae-2520-9fb8-dfe6caa46315@talpey.com>

I do think that one obvious thing that is missing is a simple python
script or slightly more complex GUI tool that would allow better
autoconfiguring a share for ksmbd without having to understand the
ksmbd.conf/smb.conf format (and a different tool for Samba - although
to be fair for Samba various vendors and some distros have tools to do
this), but in the short term, a few more example smb.conf/ksmbd.conf
files might help (maybe in the wiki?)

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 1:52 PM Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/1/2022 2:30 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 08:41:08PM +0300, atheik wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 09:14:31 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:06:07AM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, two things. What I found strange is the "man smb.conf.5ksmbd", and
> >>>> as you say that should be man 5k smb.conf. Sounds ok to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> But the second thing I'm concerned about is the reuse of the smb.conf
> >>>> filename. It's perfectly possible to install both Samba and ksmbd on
> >>>> a system, they can be configured to use different ports, listen on
> >>>> different interfaces, or any number of other deployment approaches.
> >>>>
> >>>> And, Samba provides MUCH more than an SMB server, and configures many
> >>>> other services in smb.conf. So I feel ksmbd should avoid such filename
> >>>> conflicts. To me, calling it "ksmbd.conf" is much more logical.
> >>>
> >>> +1 from me. Having 2 conflicting file contents both wanting
> >>> to be called smb.conf is a disaster waiting to happen.
> >>
> >> ksmbd-tools clearly has a goal of being compatible with smb.conf(5) of
> >> Samba when it comes to the common subset of functionality they share.
> >> ksmbd-tools has 7 global parameters that Samba does not have, but other
> >> than, share parameters and global parameters of ksmbd-tools are subset
> >> of those in Samba. Samba and ksmbd-tools do not have any conflicting
> >> file locations. The smb.conf(5ksmbd) man page of ksmbd-tools does not
> >> collide with and never overshadows smb.conf(5) of Samba. Please, help
> >> me understand what sort of disaster this could lead to.
> >
> > Samba adds and or changes functionality in smb.conf all
> > the time, without coordination with ksmbd. If you call
> > your config file smb.conf then we would have to coordinate
> > with you before any changes.
>
> And vice-versa. For example, ksmbd supports RDMA and can be
> configured to use interfaces with kernel-internal names,
> for example "enp2s0" or "mlx5/1". These files do not in fact
> subset one another, in either direction.
>
> > Over time, the meaning/use/names of parameters will drift
> > apart leading to possible conflicts.
>
> Personally I think they're already in conflict, having taken
> several days to work them all out wile setting up my new
> machines. And, um, I think I know what I'm doing. Heaven
> help the newbie.
>
> > Plus it leads to massive user confusion (am I running
> > smbd or ksmbd ? How do I tell ? etc.).
>
> +1
>
> Tom.
>
> > It is simple hygene to keep these names separate.
> >
> > Please do so.
> >


-- 
Thanks,

Steve