On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:46:34 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/27/2007
>
Time warp?
> at 02:19 PM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>
>>But, as discussed here recently, prohibiting read access doesn't prevent
>>the allocation, and it might be more likely that a program that ABENDs on
>>OPEN will exit abnormally without doing the FREE.
>
>Depending on how he is looking at the data set, the free might be
>automatic.
>
Take my remark as largely rhetorical. IIRC, I was rebutting a prior
post expressing a phobic delusion that if PARMLIB had UACC=READ, an
incompetently or maliciously crafted job might ABEND leaving an
unreleased restrictive ENQ on PARMLIB. I never considered it a
realistic concern. ("more likely" means some larger multiple of 0.)
Of course, there's always:
//STEP1 EXEC PGM=BPXBATCH,PARM='PGM /bin/sleep 9999'
//STEP2 EXEC PGM=IEFBR14,COND=(0,LE)
//SYSUT99 DD DISP=OLD,DSN=SYS1.PARMLIB
... but RACF won't help you there.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
