| Message ID | 20220830141732.9982-1-linkinjeon@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] ksmbd: update documentation | expand |
On 8/30/2022 10:17 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote: > configuration.txt in ksmbd-tools moved to smb.conf(5ksmbd) manpage. > update it and more detailed ksmbd-tools build method. > > Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> > Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> > --- > Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst | 10 ++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst > index 1af600db2e70..767e12d2045a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst > @@ -121,20 +121,26 @@ How to run > 1. Download ksmbd-tools and compile them. > - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools > > + # ./autogen.sh > + # ./configure --sysconfdir=/etc --with-rundir=/run > + # make & sudo make install I believe you mean "make && sudo make install"? The single & will kick off two make's in parallel. > 2. Create user/password for SMB share. > > # mkdir /etc/ksmbd/ > # ksmbd.adduser -a <Enter USERNAME for SMB share access> It may be worth mentioning that it's not just single-user access, and that additional users can be configured. > 3. Create /etc/ksmbd/smb.conf file, add SMB share in smb.conf file > - - Refer smb.conf.example and > - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools/blob/master/Documentation/configuration.txt > + - Refer smb.conf.example, See smb.conf(5ksmbd) for details. > + > + # man smb.conf.5ksmbd I like the new manpage, but that's a strange path. Are you sure the various maintainers will deploy it that way? Also, it has always bothered me that the name "smb.conf" is the same as the Samba server's configuration file, just in a different directory. If someone enters "man smb.conf", there may be confusion. I really wish the file was called "ksmbd.conf". Why not putting this under a simpler manpage title "man ksmbd"? To me, that's much more logical and it avoids both the confusion and having to somehow know that weird manpath. > 4. Insert ksmbd.ko module > > # insmod ksmbd.ko Well, it's worth mentioning that a properly configured and built kernel is a prerequisite here... Also, sudo. > 5. Start ksmbd user space daemon > + > # ksmbd.mountd FYI, Ubuntu Jammy pre-configures ksmbd as a service, and there it's as simple as "sudo service ksmbd start". Do you not want to mention the other ksmbd.<foo> helpers here? > 6. Access share from Windows or Linux using CIFS Pointer to cifs.ko how-to page? Basically, I'm encouraging these pages to be (much) more user friendly! They're fine for developers, but way too fiddly IMO for naive users, or even for admins. It has taken me days to get this all going on my fresh machines. Either way, thanks for the cleanup so far!! Tom.
BTW, I expected a "2/2" message, but never saw it. Was the subject a typo? Anyway, I have a couple of comments on the new file, which are from going to https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools/blob/master/smb.conf.5ksmbd.in It refers to "SMB1", but ksmbd removed that, right? And because the SMB2 (and SMB3!) dialects don't make it optional, does the setting still make sense? Either way, delete "SMB1" and don't restrict the discussion to "SMB2": \fBserver signing\fR (G) This controls whether the client is allowed or required to use SMB1 and SMB2 signing. With \fBserver signing = disabled\fR, SMB1 signing is not offered and \fBserver signing = auto\fR applies when negotiating SMB2. With \fBserver signing = auto\fR, SMB1 signing is offered and SMB2 signing is required. With \fBserver signing = mandatory\fR, both SMB1 and SMB2 signing is required. Also, most of the settings start with the words "This controls whether". I find these words unnecessary, and by the third or fourth one, they are super-redundant. Would you consider rewording them in a more active way, for example: \fBbind interfaces only\fR (G) This controls whether to only bind to interfaces specified with \fBinterfaces\fR. ... could be: \fBbind interfaces only\fR (G) Only bind to the interfaces specified in the \fBinterfaces\fR setting. Tom. On 8/30/2022 10:17 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote: > configuration.txt in ksmbd-tools moved to smb.conf(5ksmbd) manpage. > update it and more detailed ksmbd-tools build method. > > Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> > Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> > --- > Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst | 10 ++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst > index 1af600db2e70..767e12d2045a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst > @@ -121,20 +121,26 @@ How to run > 1. Download ksmbd-tools and compile them. > - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools > > + # ./autogen.sh > + # ./configure --sysconfdir=/etc --with-rundir=/run > + # make & sudo make install > + > 2. Create user/password for SMB share. > > # mkdir /etc/ksmbd/ > # ksmbd.adduser -a <Enter USERNAME for SMB share access> > > 3. Create /etc/ksmbd/smb.conf file, add SMB share in smb.conf file > - - Refer smb.conf.example and > - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools/blob/master/Documentation/configuration.txt > + - Refer smb.conf.example, See smb.conf(5ksmbd) for details. > + > + # man smb.conf.5ksmbd > > 4. Insert ksmbd.ko module > > # insmod ksmbd.ko > > 5. Start ksmbd user space daemon > + > # ksmbd.mountd > > 6. Access share from Windows or Linux using CIFS
2022-08-31 2:32 GMT+09:00, Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>: > BTW, I expected a "2/2" message, but never saw it. Was the > subject a typo? Ah, Yes, 2/2 patch was sent to the list without you cc. I usually send the patch to the list with maintainers/reviewers, but You have report the problem about 1/2 patch, So I include you cc tag in the patch. > > Anyway, I have a couple of comments on the new file, which are from > going to > https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools/blob/master/smb.conf.5ksmbd.in > > It refers to "SMB1", but ksmbd removed that, right? And because the > SMB2 (and SMB3!) dialects don't make it optional, does the setting > still make sense? Either way, delete "SMB1" and don't restrict the > discussion to "SMB2": Okay:) > > \fBserver signing\fR (G) > This controls whether the client is allowed or required to use SMB1 and > SMB2 signing. > With \fBserver signing = disabled\fR, SMB1 signing is not offered and > \fBserver signing = auto\fR applies when negotiating SMB2. > With \fBserver signing = auto\fR, SMB1 signing is offered and SMB2 > signing is required. > With \fBserver signing = mandatory\fR, both SMB1 and SMB2 signing is > required. > > > Also, most of the settings start with the words "This controls whether". > I find these words unnecessary, and by the third or fourth one, they > are super-redundant. Would you consider rewording them in a more > active way, for example: Okay, I will do that! Thanks for your review! > > \fBbind interfaces only\fR (G) > This controls whether to only bind to interfaces specified with > \fBinterfaces\fR. > > ... could be: > > \fBbind interfaces only\fR (G) > Only bind to the interfaces specified in the \fBinterfaces\fR setting. > > Tom. > > > On 8/30/2022 10:17 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote: >> configuration.txt in ksmbd-tools moved to smb.conf(5ksmbd) manpage. >> update it and more detailed ksmbd-tools build method. >> >> Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> >> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> >> --- >> Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst | 10 ++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> index 1af600db2e70..767e12d2045a 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> @@ -121,20 +121,26 @@ How to run >> 1. Download ksmbd-tools and compile them. >> - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools >> >> + # ./autogen.sh >> + # ./configure --sysconfdir=/etc --with-rundir=/run >> + # make & sudo make install >> + >> 2. Create user/password for SMB share. >> >> # mkdir /etc/ksmbd/ >> # ksmbd.adduser -a <Enter USERNAME for SMB share access> >> >> 3. Create /etc/ksmbd/smb.conf file, add SMB share in smb.conf file >> - - Refer smb.conf.example and >> - >> https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools/blob/master/Documentation/configuration.txt >> + - Refer smb.conf.example, See smb.conf(5ksmbd) for details. >> + >> + # man smb.conf.5ksmbd >> >> 4. Insert ksmbd.ko module >> >> # insmod ksmbd.ko >> >> 5. Start ksmbd user space daemon >> + >> # ksmbd.mountd >> >> 6. Access share from Windows or Linux using CIFS >
2022-08-31 1:13 GMT+09:00, Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>: > On 8/30/2022 10:17 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote: >> configuration.txt in ksmbd-tools moved to smb.conf(5ksmbd) manpage. >> update it and more detailed ksmbd-tools build method. >> >> Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> >> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> >> --- >> Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst | 10 ++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> index 1af600db2e70..767e12d2045a 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> @@ -121,20 +121,26 @@ How to run >> 1. Download ksmbd-tools and compile them. >> - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools >> >> + # ./autogen.sh >> + # ./configure --sysconfdir=/etc --with-rundir=/run >> + # make & sudo make install > > I believe you mean "make && sudo make install"? The single & will > kick off two make's in parallel. Will fix it. > >> 2. Create user/password for SMB share. >> >> # mkdir /etc/ksmbd/ >> # ksmbd.adduser -a <Enter USERNAME for SMB share access> > > It may be worth mentioning that it's not just single-user access, and > that additional users can be configured. Ah, Okay. Let me think more.. > >> 3. Create /etc/ksmbd/smb.conf file, add SMB share in smb.conf file >> - - Refer smb.conf.example and >> - >> https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools/blob/master/Documentation/configuration.txt >> + - Refer smb.conf.example, See smb.conf(5ksmbd) for details. >> + >> + # man smb.conf.5ksmbd > > I like the new manpage, but that's a strange path. Are you sure > the various maintainers will deploy it that way? I was sure there won't be any strong comments, as We've used the MIT Kerberos (krb5-doc) case as an example. If samba is not installed, man smb.conf show ksmbd's one. > > Also, it has always bothered me that the name "smb.conf" is the > same as the Samba server's configuration file, just in a different > directory. If someone enters "man smb.conf", there may be confusion. > I really wish the file was called "ksmbd.conf". The initial idea was to make the configuration compatible with samba. Users copy it to ksmbd directory and reuse the smb.conf file they used in samba as it is. And I have no strong opinion to renaming it to ksmbd.conf(i.e. man ksmb.conf). Atte, Any thought about this ? > > Why not putting this under a simpler manpage title "man ksmbd"? > To me, that's much more logical and it avoids both the confusion > and having to somehow know that weird manpath. Is it possible to add it to manpage even though a utility or configuration file named ksmbd doesn't exist? That is, as if there is no "man nfs". > >> 4. Insert ksmbd.ko module >> >> # insmod ksmbd.ko > > Well, it's worth mentioning that a properly configured and built > kernel is a prerequisite here... Okay. > > Also, sudo. > >> 5. Start ksmbd user space daemon >> + >> # ksmbd.mountd > > FYI, Ubuntu Jammy pre-configures ksmbd as a service, and there it's > as simple as "sudo service ksmbd start". Is this command available on all distributions? > > Do you not want to mention the other ksmbd.<foo> helpers here? Other ksmbd utils are described in README of ksmbd-tools github, so I did not list them here. > >> 6. Access share from Windows or Linux using CIFS > > Pointer to cifs.ko how-to page? Do you know of a page link for cifs.ko? > > Basically, I'm encouraging these pages to be (much) more user > friendly! They're fine for developers, but way too fiddly IMO > for naive users, or even for admins. It has taken me days to get > this all going on my fresh machines. okay.. > > Either way, thanks for the cleanup so far!! Thanks! > > Tom. >
On 8/30/2022 12:33 PM, Tom Talpey wrote: >On 8/30/2022 10:17 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote: >> configuration.txt in ksmbd-tools moved to smb.conf(5ksmbd) manpage. >> update it and more detailed ksmbd-tools build method. >> >> Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> >> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> >> --- >> Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst | 10 ++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> index 1af600db2e70..767e12d2045a 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >> @@ -121,20 +121,26 @@ How to run >> 1. Download ksmbd-tools and compile them. >> - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools >> >> + # ./autogen.sh >> + # ./configure --sysconfdir=/etc --with-rundir=/run >> + # make & sudo make install > >I believe you mean "make && sudo make install"? The single & will >kick off two make's in parallel. Also, Jeon, since `#' indicates root prompt, there shouldn't be `sudo'. If you want to use `sudo' in the instructions, then use `$' prompt. With that `./configure' invocation, the utilities end up in `/usr/local/sbin'. Since `sysconfdir=/etc' is associated with the `/usr' prefix, it might be better to put the utilities in there also. Meaning that `--prefix=/usr' should be given to `./configure', so `sbindir' becomes `/usr/sbin'. Alternatively, `sysconfdir=/etc' should be removed so that `/usr/local/etc' is used. This way the user-built ksmbd-tools doesn't conflict with ksmbd-tools installed using the package manager. > >> 2. Create user/password for SMB share. >> >> # mkdir /etc/ksmbd/ Jeon, the install target already creates `/etc/ksmbd'. >> # ksmbd.adduser -a <Enter USERNAME for SMB share access> > >It may be worth mentioning that it's not just single-user access, and >that additional users can be configured. > >> 3. Create /etc/ksmbd/smb.conf file, add SMB share in smb.conf file >> - - Refer smb.conf.example and >> - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools/blob/master/Documentation/configuration.txt >> + - Refer smb.conf.example, See smb.conf(5ksmbd) for details. >> + >> + # man smb.conf.5ksmbd > >I like the new manpage, but that's a strange path. Are you sure >the various maintainers will deploy it that way? Jeon, it should be `man 5ksmbd smb.conf'. `5' is the section number and `ksmbd' further differentiates it from Samba's `smb.conf'. Currently, just `5k' is enough to do so. > >Also, it has always bothered me that the name "smb.conf" is the >same as the Samba server's configuration file, just in a different >directory. If someone enters "man smb.conf", there may be confusion. >I really wish the file was called "ksmbd.conf". Talpey, in what way is it strange? If both Samba and ksmbd-tools are installed, `man 5 smb.conf' is the Samba page. Then `man 5ksmbd smb.conf' (or just `man 5k smb.conf') is the ksmbd-tools page. If only ksmbd-tools is installed, `man 5 smb.conf' is the ksmbd-tools page. The same applies for just `man smb.conf' since there is only a page with that name in section 5. This makes sense since Samba's `smb.conf' is authoritative and ksmbd-tools tries to be compatible. > >Why not putting this under a simpler manpage title "man ksmbd"? >To me, that's much more logical and it avoids both the confusion >and having to somehow know that weird manpath. > >> 4. Insert ksmbd.ko module >> >> # insmod ksmbd.ko > >Well, it's worth mentioning that a properly configured and built >kernel is a prerequisite here... > >Also, sudo. > >> 5. Start ksmbd user space daemon >> + >> # ksmbd.mountd > >FYI, Ubuntu Jammy pre-configures ksmbd as a service, and there it's >as simple as "sudo service ksmbd start". > >Do you not want to mention the other ksmbd.<foo> helpers here? > >> 6. Access share from Windows or Linux using CIFS > >Pointer to cifs.ko how-to page? > >Basically, I'm encouraging these pages to be (much) more user >friendly! They're fine for developers, but way too fiddly IMO >for naive users, or even for admins. It has taken me days to get >this all going on my fresh machines. > >Either way, thanks for the cleanup so far!! > >Tom. > Atte Heikkilä
On 9/1/2022 1:19 AM, atheik wrote: > On 8/30/2022 12:33 PM, Tom Talpey wrote: >> On 8/30/2022 10:17 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote: >>> configuration.txt in ksmbd-tools moved to smb.conf(5ksmbd) manpage. >>> update it and more detailed ksmbd-tools build method. >>> >>> Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> >>> --- >>> Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst | 10 ++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >>> index 1af600db2e70..767e12d2045a 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst >>> @@ -121,20 +121,26 @@ How to run >>> 1. Download ksmbd-tools and compile them. >>> - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools >>> >>> + # ./autogen.sh >>> + # ./configure --sysconfdir=/etc --with-rundir=/run >>> + # make & sudo make install >> >> I believe you mean "make && sudo make install"? The single & will >> kick off two make's in parallel. > > Also, Jeon, since `#' indicates root prompt, there shouldn't be `sudo'. > If you want to use `sudo' in the instructions, then use `$' prompt. > With that `./configure' invocation, the utilities end up in > `/usr/local/sbin'. Since `sysconfdir=/etc' is associated with the > `/usr' prefix, it might be better to put the utilities in there also. > Meaning that `--prefix=/usr' should be given to `./configure', so > `sbindir' becomes `/usr/sbin'. Alternatively, `sysconfdir=/etc' > should be removed so that `/usr/local/etc' is used. This way the > user-built ksmbd-tools doesn't conflict with ksmbd-tools installed > using the package manager. > >> >>> 2. Create user/password for SMB share. >>> >>> # mkdir /etc/ksmbd/ > > Jeon, the install target already creates `/etc/ksmbd'. > >>> # ksmbd.adduser -a <Enter USERNAME for SMB share access> >> >> It may be worth mentioning that it's not just single-user access, and >> that additional users can be configured. >> >>> 3. Create /etc/ksmbd/smb.conf file, add SMB share in smb.conf file >>> - - Refer smb.conf.example and >>> - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools/blob/master/Documentation/configuration.txt >>> + - Refer smb.conf.example, See smb.conf(5ksmbd) for details. >>> + >>> + # man smb.conf.5ksmbd >> >> I like the new manpage, but that's a strange path. Are you sure >> the various maintainers will deploy it that way? > > Jeon, it should be `man 5ksmbd smb.conf'. `5' is the section number and > `ksmbd' further differentiates it from Samba's `smb.conf'. Currently, > just `5k' is enough to do so. > >> >> Also, it has always bothered me that the name "smb.conf" is the >> same as the Samba server's configuration file, just in a different >> directory. If someone enters "man smb.conf", there may be confusion. >> I really wish the file was called "ksmbd.conf". > > Talpey, in what way is it strange? If both Samba and ksmbd-tools are > installed, `man 5 smb.conf' is the Samba page. Then > `man 5ksmbd smb.conf' (or just `man 5k smb.conf') is the ksmbd-tools > page. If only ksmbd-tools is installed, `man 5 smb.conf' is the > ksmbd-tools page. The same applies for just `man smb.conf' since there > is only a page with that name in section 5. This makes sense since > Samba's `smb.conf' is authoritative and ksmbd-tools tries to be > compatible. 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. Tom. >> Why not putting this under a simpler manpage title "man ksmbd"? >> To me, that's much more logical and it avoids both the confusion >> and having to somehow know that weird manpath. >> >>> 4. Insert ksmbd.ko module >>> >>> # insmod ksmbd.ko >> >> Well, it's worth mentioning that a properly configured and built >> kernel is a prerequisite here... >> >> Also, sudo. >> >>> 5. Start ksmbd user space daemon >>> + >>> # ksmbd.mountd >> >> FYI, Ubuntu Jammy pre-configures ksmbd as a service, and there it's >> as simple as "sudo service ksmbd start". >> >> Do you not want to mention the other ksmbd.<foo> helpers here? >> >>> 6. Access share from Windows or Linux using CIFS >> >> Pointer to cifs.ko how-to page? >> >> Basically, I'm encouraging these pages to be (much) more user >> friendly! They're fine for developers, but way too fiddly IMO >> for naive users, or even for admins. It has taken me days to get >> this all going on my fresh machines. >> >> Either way, thanks for the cleanup so far!! >> >> Tom. >> > > Atte Heikkilä >
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. Please use ksmbd.conf.
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. > >Please use ksmbd.conf. Atte Heikkilä
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. Plus it leads to massive user confusion (am I running smbd or ksmbd ? How do I tell ? etc.). It is simple hygene to keep these names separate. Please do so.
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. >
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 11:30:32 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > >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. ksmbd-tools has always called its config file `smb.conf'. Has this matter come up before? I don't have anything against changing the name, but I'd be surprised if my writing of the man pages first prompted this concern. > >Over time, the meaning/use/names of parameters will drift >apart leading to possible conflicts. > >Plus it leads to massive user confusion (am I running >smbd or ksmbd ? How do I tell ? etc.). > >It is simple hygene to keep these names separate. > >Please do so. Atte Heikkilä
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:42:12PM +0300, atheik wrote: >On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 11:30:32 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: >> >>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. > >ksmbd-tools has always called its config file `smb.conf'. Has this >matter come up before? I don't have anything against changing the name, >but I'd be surprised if my writing of the man pages first prompted this >concern. Well I didn't realize it used the same name until you wrote the man page :-).
On Fri, 2 Sept 2022 at 04:34, Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org> 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. > > Plus it leads to massive user confusion (am I running > smbd or ksmbd ? How do I tell ? etc.). +1 We should avoid having the same name here since it will cause confusion and it will lead to files with the same name but with similar but also different context and syntax. Any tool that automatically scans/operates on smb.conf is potentially going to have a bad time. > > It is simple hygene to keep these names separate. > > Please do so.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 4:21 PM ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Sept 2022 at 04:34, Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org> 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.
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:37:21PM -0500, Steve French wrote: > >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. Sure, I think the formats and parameter names being as close as possible is a great idea to allow users to move between servers as they wish. But making the files the same name is not a good idea.
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. > >
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
2022-09-02 6:48 GMT+09:00, Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:37:21PM -0500, Steve French wrote: >> >>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. > > Sure, I think the formats and parameter names being as close > as possible is a great idea to allow users to move between > servers as they wish. But making the files the same name > is not a good idea. This is the first time I've heard that it is problem that ksmbd's config filename is same with samba's one. Reading the mail threads, I don't understand exactly what the real problem is... I thought that using same smb.conf name make users aware that it was forked from samba's one. I'm a little surprised, I thought that you will say that we should use the same name. This seems to contradict your previous opinion that ksmbd's dos attribute and stream xattr format should be the same with samba's one. It's not difficult to change config filename of ksmbd if you agree with it. If we think about adding the ksmbd integration feature in samba recently, I think it would be better to use the same name for future.
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:56:57AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: >2022-09-02 6:48 GMT+09:00, Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>: >> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:37:21PM -0500, Steve French wrote: >>> >>>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. >> >> Sure, I think the formats and parameter names being as close >> as possible is a great idea to allow users to move between >> servers as they wish. But making the files the same name >> is not a good idea. >This is the first time I've heard that it is problem that ksmbd's >config filename is same with samba's one. Reading the mail threads, I >don't understand exactly what the real problem is... I thought that >using same smb.conf name make users aware that it was forked from >samba's one. I'm a little surprised, I thought that you will say that >we should use the same name. This seems to contradict your previous >opinion that ksmbd's dos attribute and stream xattr format should be >the same with samba's one. It's not difficult to change config >filename of ksmbd if you agree with it. If we think about adding the >ksmbd integration feature in samba recently, I think it would be >better to use the same name for future. Well as Tom said, it gets very confusing to have the same name config file. The file system attributes etc. certainly should be the same, to allow a user to swap between the two servers based on need and not lose any meta-data. But as the features diverge, trying to keep a common config will get harder and harder. Better to take the pain now, rather than try and postpone for later. It'll hurt *worse* later :-).
On 9/1/2022 10:11 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:56:57AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: >> 2022-09-02 6:48 GMT+09:00, Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>: >>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:37:21PM -0500, Steve French wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Sure, I think the formats and parameter names being as close >>> as possible is a great idea to allow users to move between >>> servers as they wish. But making the files the same name >>> is not a good idea. >> This is the first time I've heard that it is problem that ksmbd's >> config filename is same with samba's one. Reading the mail threads, I >> don't understand exactly what the real problem is... I thought that >> using same smb.conf name make users aware that it was forked from >> samba's one. I'm a little surprised, I thought that you will say that >> we should use the same name. This seems to contradict your previous >> opinion that ksmbd's dos attribute and stream xattr format should be >> the same with samba's one. It's not difficult to change config >> filename of ksmbd if you agree with it. If we think about adding the >> ksmbd integration feature in samba recently, I think it would be >> better to use the same name for future. > > Well as Tom said, it gets very confusing to have the > same name config file. > > The file system attributes etc. certainly should be > the same, to allow a user to swap between the two > servers based on need and not lose any meta-data. > > But as the features diverge, trying to keep a common > config will get harder and harder. > > Better to take the pain now, rather than try and > postpone for later. It'll hurt *worse* later :-). The name collision was always a minor thing for me, but when it goes front and center in the manpage namespace, potentially coming up for a user when they expected Samba's, it is working cross-purposes. Ksmbd should forge its own identity, for clarity and for the future. Namjae, you should be excited that this kind of issue comes up. As interest in ksmbd rises, more eyes will be on it, and more feedback will come. Remember it's experimental, it is not yet frozen in stone by being adopted by large numbers of users. Now is the time to work out the usability. Tom. Let's also pop up a level
2022-09-02 21:35 GMT+09:00, Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>: > On 9/1/2022 10:11 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:56:57AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: >>> 2022-09-02 6:48 GMT+09:00, Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>: >>>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:37:21PM -0500, Steve French wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Sure, I think the formats and parameter names being as close >>>> as possible is a great idea to allow users to move between >>>> servers as they wish. But making the files the same name >>>> is not a good idea. >>> This is the first time I've heard that it is problem that ksmbd's >>> config filename is same with samba's one. Reading the mail threads, I >>> don't understand exactly what the real problem is... I thought that >>> using same smb.conf name make users aware that it was forked from >>> samba's one. I'm a little surprised, I thought that you will say that >>> we should use the same name. This seems to contradict your previous >>> opinion that ksmbd's dos attribute and stream xattr format should be >>> the same with samba's one. It's not difficult to change config >>> filename of ksmbd if you agree with it. If we think about adding the >>> ksmbd integration feature in samba recently, I think it would be >>> better to use the same name for future. >> >> Well as Tom said, it gets very confusing to have the >> same name config file. >> >> The file system attributes etc. certainly should be >> the same, to allow a user to swap between the two >> servers based on need and not lose any meta-data. >> >> But as the features diverge, trying to keep a common >> config will get harder and harder. >> >> Better to take the pain now, rather than try and >> postpone for later. It'll hurt *worse* later :-). > > The name collision was always a minor thing for me, but when it > goes front and center in the manpage namespace, potentially > coming up for a user when they expected Samba's, it is working > cross-purposes. Ksmbd should forge its own identity, for clarity > and for the future. Okay, I'm talking to Atte to do that. after changing ksmbd-tools with him, I will update ksmbd documentation in kernel. > > Namjae, you should be excited that this kind of issue comes up. > As interest in ksmbd rises, more eyes will be on it, and more > feedback will come. Remember it's experimental, it is not yet > frozen in stone by being adopted by large numbers of users. > Now is the time to work out the usability. Okay. Thank you so much for your good feedbacks as well as the patch review. Please keep giving feedback like it is now:) Thanks JRA also. > Tom. > Let's also pop up a level Yup! >
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst index 1af600db2e70..767e12d2045a 100644 --- a/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst @@ -121,20 +121,26 @@ How to run 1. Download ksmbd-tools and compile them. - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools + # ./autogen.sh + # ./configure --sysconfdir=/etc --with-rundir=/run + # make & sudo make install + 2. Create user/password for SMB share. # mkdir /etc/ksmbd/ # ksmbd.adduser -a <Enter USERNAME for SMB share access> 3. Create /etc/ksmbd/smb.conf file, add SMB share in smb.conf file - - Refer smb.conf.example and - https://github.com/cifsd-team/ksmbd-tools/blob/master/Documentation/configuration.txt + - Refer smb.conf.example, See smb.conf(5ksmbd) for details. + + # man smb.conf.5ksmbd 4. Insert ksmbd.ko module # insmod ksmbd.ko 5. Start ksmbd user space daemon + # ksmbd.mountd 6. Access share from Windows or Linux using CIFS
configuration.txt in ksmbd-tools moved to smb.conf(5ksmbd) manpage. update it and more detailed ksmbd-tools build method. Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> --- Documentation/filesystems/cifs/ksmbd.rst | 10 ++++++++-- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)