On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 4:21 PM ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Sept 2022 at 04:34, Jeremy Allison <jra@xxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > Over time, the meaning/use/names of parameters will drift > > apart leading to possible conflicts. I do like that Namjae et al made the format of the .conf file very similar to the format of Samba's smb.conf file though. I realize there some users complain that there are too many smb.conf parameters for Samba, but he seemed to pick a reasonably subset of them for ksmbd. Samba is a much larger project with many more smb.conf parameters but it does reduce confusion making the parameter names similar where possible e.g. "workgroup", "guest account", (share) path, read only, etc. and fortunately the default directories for the two smb.conf files are different so at least the daemons don't use the same file. -- Thanks, Steve
