Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

You don't need to be authorized to use z/OS UNIX shared memory segments. You do need access to the file system and the memory segments are protected using the normal UNIX permissions. Semaphores and pthread mutexes can also reside in shared memory for inter-process locking. The /tmp TFS is

NFS on Mainframe

Dear Listers I need your help in mounting pSeries (and may be NetApp) NFS folder on my zOS 2.3. I have tried it before NFS(and also SMB) but had give up on one pretext or other. Yes I am corporate slave and have no authority over Network Storage, Open system Certificate Management etc and had

Re: Finding OMVS Files with Owner IDs for Deleted Owners?

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:11:02 -0500, Robert S. Hansel wrote: > >1) I've found it necessary to specify the path as /* with the find command. > That follows symlinks in /, but omits dotted files there. (Does z/OS have any such?) On most UNIXen "find ... -follow" will not follow cyclic symlink

Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:04:26 -0500, Edward Finnell wrote: >There were two or three guys active in SHARE that had the CAD(Cloak and >dagger) site code. One of their jobs was to evaluate operating systems for >'security'. IIRC only MULTICS was higher than MVS. The evaluations were >published,

Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

There were two or three guys active in SHARE that had the CAD(Cloak and dagger) site code. One of their jobs was to evaluate operating systems for 'security'. IIRC only MULTICS was higher than MVS. The evaluations were published, maybe it was a green book. Then on last page "if it's connected

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Finding OMVS Files with Owner IDs for Deleted Owners?

Outstanding - thank you -- Lionel B. Dyck < Mainframe Systems Programmer - TRA -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert S. Hansel (RSH) Sent:

Re: Finding OMVS Files with Owner IDs for Deleted Owners?

Hi Lionel,(cross-posted IBM-MAIN and MVS-OE) Here are a couple of things to keep in mind. 1) I've found it necessary to specify the path as /* with the find command. 2) Check the extended ACLs too if there are any. find path -acl_nouser find path -acl_nogroup 3)

Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > > I didn't go into the really weird experimentation that I'm doing. I'm a > just "messing around" with the BPX1EXM (execmvs) UNIX function. > > > > What specifically are you trying to achieve so that you need to use > BPX1EXM

Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

Charles, A big thanks sir.. Scott On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Charles Mills wrote: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computer_System_ > Evaluation_Criteria#B_–_Mandatory_protection > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computer_System_Evaluation_Criteria#B_–_Mandatory_protection Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of scott Ford Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 8:31 AM To:

Re: Cobol File Question

Tom, Absolutely...I would like to have time to redesign Scott On Dec 1, 2017, 10:02 PM -0500, Savor, Thomas (Alpharetta) , wrote: > In your call to the second program...that has the FD, he owns the file. If he > is always opening the file on every call and "should"

Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

I don't think we or IBM should be close minded to passing job step data in memory. I agree with Peter , we deal with security all the time. I haven't heard of B1, Peter could you share a link? I don't want leave any system open to hacking or whatever the current buzzword is in our vocabulary.

Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

"z/OS Unix" as opposed to "Normal MVS" I like that clarification! > On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:20, Peter Relson wrote: > > Given that an unauthorized user has access only to unauthorized subpools > and that all unauthorized subpools are freed between steps, some less >

Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

Given that an unauthorized user has access only to unauthorized subpools and that all unauthorized subpools are freed between steps, some less direct approach would be necessary, involving authorized code putting the data into some other kind of storage (be that an authorized subpool, common

AW: Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

>Depends. Using Rexx address ATTCHPGM, I've called BPXBATCH with x'' >byte parm and orderly behavior. With HLASM I've passed X'7FFF' byte parm >and orderly behavior; with x'8000', HLASM program checked after issuing >several hundred thousand lines of error messages. LH with sign extension?

AW: Re: Passing data from step-to-step in single job using memory??

> I didn't go into the really weird experimentation that I'm doing. I'm a just > "messing around" with the BPX1EXM (execmvs) UNIX function. What specifically are you trying to achieve so that you need to use BPX1EXM and cannot use BPX1EXC? The latter can invoke a load module residing in a