On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
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:
But the initiator might stop you as RMF has (assuming you are running
RMF) the disp=shr in its JCL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
