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

From: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
To: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.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 23:54:26 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ef9ab522-47a4-4c05-aef0-d81feb309343@talpey.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2r5muR48e+x1DNiV3=oRvwBC6exW6Xg_bGVfu2OGQovqUoQA@mail.gmail.com>

I've got a couple, for example I cooked an RDMA-only one which I'm using for testing that ignores regular adapters and therefore can coexist with Samba. Only takes a few lines. Now, if the Ubuntu package manager wouldn't prevent me from installing both Samba and ksmbd-tools, it would be easier to deploy. :(

Sep 1, 2022 6:26:17 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.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:
>>>>>> …
>>>>> 
>>>>> +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