In
<CAArMM9QTX1qmrLoZCME-9yF=ohpsprnifjnhtwh9jg0bbu4...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 07/11/2015
at 11:11 PM, Tony Harminc <[email protected]> said:
>with generally unpleasant results when in key 0 problem state
> (rare and probably always unwise)
Au contraire, it is unwise to run i Supervisor when you don't need it.
Honor the Principle of Least Privilege and keep it holy.
>in SVS and previous systems all the non-zero keys were used to
>separate each user's storage from the others', because DAT was not
>available to do so.
SVS can't run on a system without DAT. The reaon for a single system
key was that it involved fewer changes to the MVT base.
>Any program that works like the one I described is designed using
>pre-MVS principles,
No, keeping key 0 and Supervisor state paired violates the principle
of least privilege, which predates MVS. It was just as sloppy to do so
in MVT as to do so in MVS.
--
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 [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
