Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:27:58 -0500, Ted MacNEIL wrote: >If you understand how UNIX works, this is quite sensible. See how the ISPF >interface to USS works. > Or fails to work. If under OMVS the user issues su other oedit file ... the ISPF editor is invoked not under the other user

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:18:40 -0600, John McKown wrote: >> >> su other >> oedit file >> >> ... the ISPF editor is invoked not under the other user ID, but under the ID >> that issued the OMVS command. >> > >​Which makes "sense" > No. >if you think about what the "oedit" command actually

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:01:15 +0100, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > >To run commands in a "su" shell environment, you have to write all the >commands into a UNIX file first, and then call "su" by redirecting stdin to >that UNIX file. > >echo "id" > /tmp/sucommandfile >su < /tmp/sucommandfile > >This

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

.; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?) On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Peter Hunkeler <p...@gmx.ch> wrote: > ​ > > To run commands in a "su" shell environment, you have to write all the > commands into a UNIX file first, and

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > ​ > > To run commands in a "su" shell environment, you have to write all the > commands into a UNIX file first, and then call "su" by redirecting stdin to > that UNIX file. > > > echo "id" > /tmp/sucommandfile > su <

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Paul Gilmartin < 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:27:58 -0500, Ted MacNEIL wrote: > > >If you understand how UNIX works, this is quite sensible. See how the > ISPF interface to USS works. > > > Or fails to work. If

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Hoelscher wrote: > does not do what you think it does ... > > or, in the words of Inigo Montoya .. > > you keep using that command. I do not think it means what you think it > means ... > ​What am I missing on that. I'm always

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

In <29b16432403d6c45a9bee5f0302d191779ba2...@vss-exchmb1.sfg.corp.LOCAL>, on 12/29/2015 at 06:24 PM, "Pommier, Rex" said: >The only thing you're missing on Chris' response was the movie >reference. Movie? The book came first. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz,

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does

Peter Hunkeler wrote: To run commands in a "su" shell environment, you have to write all the commands into a UNIX file first, and then call "su" by redirecting stdin to that UNIX file. echo "id" > /tmp/sucommandfile su < /tmp/sucommandfile The manual has examples of executing

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does

; pax ..." does not do what you think it does Peter Hunkeler wrote: > > > To run commands in a "su" shell environment, you have to write all the > commands into a UNIX file first, and then call "su" by redirecting stdin to > that UNIX file. > > > ec

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:26 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync

AW: Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does

​>Which makes "sense" if you think about what the "oedit" command actually >does. Think of the OMVS command as doing a fork() to start a new UNIX >process. Which is what it does. Nope. OMVS (by default) starts the shell process as a local process (using attach_exec, I believe), i.e. the

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

age- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Peter Hunkeler > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:34 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] AW: Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think

AW: Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does

>>If you understand how UNIX works, this is quite sensible. See how the ISPF >>interface to USS works. >> >Or fails to work. If under OMVS the user issues > >su other >oedit file > >... the ISPF editor is invoked not under the other user ID, but under the ID >that issued the OMVS command. I

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > >>If you understand how UNIX works, this is quite sensible. See how the > ISPF interface to USS works. > >> > >Or fails to work. If under OMVS the user issues > > > >su other > >oedit file > > > >... the ISPF editor is

AW: Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

>>echo "id" > /tmp/sucommandfile >>su < /tmp/sucommandfile >> >>This will show uid=0, because it is the sub shell (uid=0), which is reading >>from /tmp/sucommandfile as if it >was stdin, and execute the commands found >>therein. >> >Did this work for you on z/OS? Looking for alternatives on a

BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

> sh cd /u/zfs;su;pax -rwvCMX -p eW . /u/hfs This does not do what you think it does. The pax command will run under the initial uid and not with uid=o as you might hope. I recently explained this on the RACF-L list as follows: Starting in the initial shell process, most (shell) commands