On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 23:22:09 +1000, Greg Price <[email protected]> wrote:
>Once upon a time I used to rely on the DCB abend exit to >trap the S913 so that the program did not just abend without >deallocating the data set. > >However, when I worked at an ACF2 site (years ago) the DCB abend >exit did not receive control and the allocation was left dangling >(because the program abended). Why not just use an ESTAE? > >So I added code like >RACROUTE REQUEST=AUTH, > ENTITY=$DSNAME, > VOLSER=$VOLSER, > ATTR=READ, > DSTYPE=N, > WORKA=$WKA, > MF=(E,$RRL) >and if that indicated a lack of READ access then I avoided >the attempt at OPEN. > >Now this was non-VSAM so not exactly what was being discussed, >but at the time it was a valid reason to do a check before OPEN did. > That's is exactly what we were discussing before we got diverted a bit by the VSAM discussion. You failed to OBTAIN the DSCB and examine the RACF indicator flag. If you do not specify RACFIND=, and specify it correctly, there are cases where you can get a different answer than OPEN would get, and you might get either a failure (where OPEN would work) or a success (where OPEN would fail). At least with RACF. I can't comment on ACF2, but RACF sets the rules for how you're supposed to write the program, and it would be best to write it according to the rules so you have a better chance of it working if run with a different security product. -- Walt Farrell IBM STSM, z/OS Security Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
