On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 12:38:38 PM PDT, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > Doesn't any program object invoked by // EXEC PGM= execute in the initiator's > address space?
Sorry. I forgot to say EXEC PGM=AOPBATCH is safe. > Is there the same exposure for any user-coded program that uses LINK or > ATTACH? The AOPBATCH exposure is with LINK or ATTACH. For example, calling it from ISPF exposes everything running in that ISPF session. TSO region size tends to be smaller than dubbed processes. Unix programs tend to consume lots of storage. Things like MALLOC do not abend and program's don't always check for success. Using & in scripts could leave forked processes running. I could come up with more Address space sharing has rules and it's been far too long for me to remember the specifics. Those rules could easily have changed since I last used it. BPXBATCH always ensured you worked in a safe environment without the need to understand those rules. > How does the exposure compare with BPX1SPN BPX_SHAREAS=MUST /bin/sh? It's been a long time. If I remember correctly, it has the exposure. What makes this acceptable is that you know there are risks but willing to accept those risks. Jon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
