Did anybody submit an RFE for a safe encapsulation of TRAP and PER handling? Is the MC interface still available for privileged users other than GTF?
I've done software development; the pressure is no worse than at a data center, and in many cases you have a lot more control and more people to bounce ideas off of. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 1:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is TCBSENV propagated to child TCB by ATTACHX I do understand that all these cool things are, in fact, quite dangerous facilities for the uninitiated and ignorant, and well-deserving of the provided protection from untutored use. I don't think it's a sufficient business case for IBM purposes, but the lack of GUPI encapsulation for these kinds of capabilities which are already available in the system does at least somewhat limit the scope of applications that can be envisioned and implemented by programmers without access to private sandbox systems in which to experiment and learn. Sometimes I wish I still worked for a viable ISV where such experimentation is encouraged and rewarded, and then I remember the uncertainty and extraordinary work pressure of employment at such companies. Very bad for one's digestion and usually detrimental to calm family life. Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 12:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is TCBSENV propagated to child TCB by ATTACHX Because the raw facilities are dangerous and IBM hasn't provided services to safely encapsulate them. The safeguards may seem confining, but I remember too well what life was like without them to want to return to those days. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 10:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is TCBSENV propagated to child TCB by ATTACHX [Slightly OT and very much tongue-in-cheek . . .] Why do all the cool things to play with (servers and worker spaces and TRAP and . . . ) require authorized code? That keeps inquiring minds from experimenting and learning the cool things on our own (since no one seems to want to actually pay for learning anything these days). Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 9:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is TCBSENV propagated to child TCB by ATTACHX Only if the attacher is authorized and asks for that to be done, by setting bit TCBSENVP (the "P" stands for "propagate") in its own TCB prior to the ATTACH(X). If the bit is on, the bit and the value are propagated to the daughter TCB. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
