On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> I really appreciate the flexibility IBM demonstrates in the last sentence: > > Be running with POSIX(ON) and have set the environment variables to signal > that you want to establish a nested enclave. You can use the __POSIX_SYSTEM > environment variable to cause a system() to establish a nested enclave > instead of performing a fork()/exec(). __POSIX_SYSTEM can be set to NO, No, > or no. > I'm wondering what would happen if 'nO' was specified? ;-) > > :-( > > Charles > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Sam Siegel > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON) > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Scott Ford <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Sam, > > > > I am curious was your CEEPIPI and assembler driver to call and establish > > separate tasks? > > > > Yes - From my reading of the DOC, each TCB can have > a separate and independent LE ENCLAVE. This has proven to be true and > works well. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
