>> Isn't it "treated as being loaded from APF authorized library"? > >If that's the precise text from the manual, then I'd have to argue that
>it's grammatically incorrect: It should say "having been" where it says >"being". :-) It's not from a manual, it's from me, with all the mistakes in spelling (well I think there are none in this case) and grammar :-) Here is the text from one manual: "In addition, any module in the link pack area will be treated by the system as though it came from an APF-authorized library." >Regardless, unless I misunderstand "authorization", if an authorized >caller were to invoke that module after it was loaded into the LPA, the >module would be able to perform functions requiring authorization, even >lacking AC(1). How did the "authorized caller" become authorized? Because the program has been link edited with AC(1), is running as job step program and was loaded from an APF authorized library, right? It can then only load/link... modules which also come (or came) from an APF authorized library. The AC() of these modules is not of interest. Since the subprogram runs under the same TCB, it is running APF authorized, too. But the same subprogram cannot do anything for which authorization is needed in the same constellation if the job step program was not running authorized. Calling a program from LPA as job step program does not automatically run it authorized, only if it also has the AC(1). My understanding. Not sure this matches 100% what you wrote. -- Peter Hunkeler Credit Suisse ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
