In <4f50f9bf.10...@phoenixsoftware.com>, on 03/02/2012
at 08:47 AM, Edward Jaffe <edja...@phoenixsoftware.com> said:
>A "magic" PFLIH technique is not substantially different, from an
>integrity standpoint, than a "magic" SVC except that the code
>gets control for EVERY interrupt
ITYM every Program interrupt.
>The presence of SVC IGX00011 on z/OS systems *proves* that
>so-called "magic" SVCs that "confer authority to their callers,"
The ESR's do not"confer authority to their callers," but rather invoke
narrowly defined functions. The so-called "magic" SVC's return to
their callers in a more privileged mode.
>are NOT considered an exposure when implemented correctly.
I have yet to see one that was implemented correctly.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
