> Key0 is much much more dangerous than supervisor state (IMHO) Interesting. I never thought of that, but I agree. Which is the more likely error?
- You accidentally code some privileged instruction that you did not intend? - You code the wrong register number in an instruction, or destroy or forget to initialize the contents of a register (at least on some code paths), or a register gets incremented too far? Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2019 11:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Any way to set the PKM in "open code". On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 20:15:40 -0400 Rob Schramm <[email protected]> wrote: :>I suspect John's answer will be :>1) because it's cool to try new things Well, to do that he could encapsulate this code in a PC-CP with an altered AKM. :>2) because I want to limit the destruction if it goes wrong. Key0 is much much more dangerous than supervisor state (IMHO) :>Waiting for the real answer, :>Rob :> :>On Sun, Jun 9, 2019, 6:22 PM Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> :>wrote: :> :>> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 08:57:38 -0500 John McKown < :>> [email protected]> :>> wrote: :>> :>> :>I am not finding this. I want to change the PKM for my running, APF :>> :>authorized, program to include key 0. Why? So that I can switch in and :>> out :>> :>of key 0 using an SPKA instruction rather than MODESET. But mainly so :>> that :>> :>I can use the MVCSK and MVCDK instructions to read & update key 0, fetch :>> :>protected, storage without going into key 0. :>> :>> :>Or am I just being silly (again)? :>> :>> Why not simply run supervisor state which allows access to all keys? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
