On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Peter Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >Even a non-authorized program which is linked RENT > >can write into its STATIC CSECT. > > But only if the program is not fetched from an APF-authorized > concatenation (and maybe that's a requirement for PL/I programs with this > characteristic). > > In that case, the program can write into the program itself too. > > For the static csect, does PL/I do something to keep track of CSECT > mappings and obtain storage for the static csect in user-key storage? > That's the only way that writing into that csect could "overcome" APF > authorization rules. > > Peter Relson > z/OS Core Technology Design > > As an aside, I really wish that _all_ programs marked RENT,REFR would be loaded into key 0, write protected, storage independent of APF considerations. I'm sure that there is _some_ reason why it is done as it is currently done, perhaps for "hysterical" <grin/> reasons. If I am really worried about such, I try to use the PGSER PROTECT function to do this. But that is really only easy in HLASM. -- While a transcendent vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful so that the calculated objective of communication does not become ensconced in obscurity. In other words, eschew obfuscation. 111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321 Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
