In <listserv%201006262246290980.0...@bama.ua.edu>, on 06/26/2010
at 10:46 PM, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> said:
>I do not mean to conflate converter operations with interpreter
>operations.
That doesn't change things; it would be an integrity exoposure either
way.
>If the external generator were forked into a separate address space
>and setuid submitter, the security exposures would be limited to DoS
>via long-running or output-spewing generators.
Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
>Even as they now recognize "/* Rexx ..."?
In principle, but it would take more code.
>How does one pass a handle
>of a PDS member to /bin/sh?
Extend the syntax. Use a pipe. There are ways to do it.
>This instantly gets into trouble with the VTAM TSO
>half-ass^H^H^Hduplex terminal handling.
ObMarkTwain You mean the missing functionality that's been there for
decades?
>Cf. the infuriating RUNNING/INPUT toggle in 3270 OMVS.
That's the OMVS application code, not the VTIOC services. Similarly,
the behavior of ISPF is due to ISPF code, not TSO.
I vaguely recall there there is code on the CBT tape that runs full
duplex in TSO. It's not rocket science.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
