It's dated; that used to be required but for a long timr BPX.SUPERUSER ha been 
enough.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר



________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of 
David Spiegel <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 6:43 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SysProg UID(0)?


External Message: Use Caution


Hi Keith,
Did you see the reference mentioned by Gil?:

Setting up UID(0) access for SMP/E installation - IBM Documentation
<https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ims-es/3.2.0?topic=installation-setting-up-uid0-access-smpe>

Is this also a mistake?

Thanks and regards,
David

On 2025-05-23 03:43, Keith Gooding wrote:
> The unix authorisation requirements are spelled out in the section “Checking 
> that you have the appropriate access” in the z/OS SMP/E User guide but in the 
> first paragraph surely “and be UID 0” should read “or be UID 0” as in the 
> second paragraph.
>
>
> Keith Gooding
>
>> On 23 May 2025, at 04:24, Seymour J Metz<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Not for a long time. The job running SMP needs to have a userid with the 
>> proper authorization. It's spelled out.
>>
>> I prefer to have SMP run under a separate userid, and only give my base 
>> userid the access that it needs for other work.
>>
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>> עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
>> נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List<[email protected]> on behalf of 
>> David Spiegel<[email protected]>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 5:59 PM
>> To:[email protected] <[email protected]>
>> Subject: SysProg UID(0)?
>>
>>
>> External Message: Use Caution
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> Is it absolutely necessary for SysProgs running SMP/e Jobs with USS
>> Maintenance to have UID(0)?
>> One reason I can think of is that the new files need to be owned by
>> UID(0)/GID(0). Another is that since "System" Directories (e.g. /usr)
>> are owned by UID(0)/GID(0), the new files cannot be placed there due to
>> the existing permission bits.)
>>
>> Please confirm/deny my reasoning.
>>
>> Thank you in advance.
>>
>> David
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email [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

Reply via email to