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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
