On 16 Nov 2012 11:40:12 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >Saying that I running Sam's UCBLOOK or SHOWZOS in an unauthorized state, can >be traversing one of these chains, encounter an element disappearing, and >initiate an I/O or any other action which results in more than an abend of my >SHOWMVS/UCBLOOK? Anything that actually could lead to something as drastic as >an IPL? Surely such a failure of system integrity would be APARable. Even if >the interface is not GUPI. Integrity is not enforced by documentation :) > >Although a screwdriver is generally preferred to drive a screw, there are >times when expedience or need indicates a hammer will do the job adequately >for the specific situation.
I would prefer a dime or a coin as a screwdriver replacement. I have used pliers in the place of a hammer. In this case, if I understand the original intent of the code for UCB scanning, it is for read and display purposes. Doing any I/O to any UCB address found probably would not be overly brilliant. Thus the question is the magnitude and seriousness of the risk. Thr traversing is being done unauthorized so no system storage should adversely affected. If the process doing the scan abends, it should not take the system with it and if it does there are problems because an unauthorized programs shouldn't have the ability. If any abend in UCBLOOK can be trapped and the scan rerun, then the worst scenario is an abend or a loop in the case of repetitive failures. If UCBLOOK or similar code is used in site maintained system monitoring and display problem programming state tools which have no impact upon failure, then I don't see a problem. If this technique is used in commercial tools then at least graceful recovery is needed, again with the caveat that I am thinking of problem program unauthorized state tools. In short given that the technique has a non-zero probability of failure, is the consequence of that failure acceptable. Clark Morris > >Dave Gibney >Information Technology Services >Washington State University > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Bob Shannon >> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 7:31 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: "New" way to do UCB lookups >> >> >A minimal requirement for their integrity is that two dispatchables not >> access >one of them concurrently. >> >> Absolutely. >> >> > we are dealing here with well understood risks that are entirely avoidable >> and that there is thus no excuse for incurring them >> >> At a higher level no one has mentioned the risk of using an undocumented >> interface to do something for which documented services are available. >> >> Bob Shannon >> Rocket Software >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
