2022-12-30 11:54 GMT+09:00, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On (22/12/28 00:02), Namjae Jeon wrote:
> [..]
>> @@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ static int ipc_ksmbd_starting_up(void)
>> ev->smb2_max_write = global_conf.smb2_max_write;
>> ev->smb2_max_trans = global_conf.smb2_max_trans;
>> ev->smbd_max_io_size = global_conf.smbd_max_io_size;
>> + ev->max_connections = global_conf.max_connections;
>> ev->share_fake_fscaps = global_conf.share_fake_fscaps;
>> memcpy(ev->sub_auth, global_conf.gen_subauth, sizeof(ev->sub_auth));
>> ev->smb2_max_credits = global_conf.smb2_max_credits;
>> diff --git a/tools/config_parser.c b/tools/config_parser.c
>> index 2dc6b34..5f36606 100644
>> --- a/tools/config_parser.c
>> +++ b/tools/config_parser.c
>> @@ -548,6 +548,11 @@ static gboolean global_group_kv(gpointer _k, gpointer
>> _v, gpointer user_data)
>> return TRUE;
>> }
>>
>> + if (!cp_key_cmp(_k, "max connections")) {
>> + global_conf.max_connections = memparse(_v);
>> + return TRUE;
>> + }
>> +
>
> I'd say that it'll make sense to me if ksmbd will impose a default
> limit on the number of connections, which people can overwrite. Yes,
> I know that samba doesn't limit by default, but ksmbd is a kernel
> module and the price of unlimited resource consumption is higher.
> We can't probably easily apply the "samba does it" rule here. What
> do you think?
>
> How about:
> - default `max connections`, say, of 512. max possible value, say, 64k?
> - `max connections` cannot be zero
Make sense. I will update it on v2.
Thanks for your review:)
>
