I would think that IBM would be scurring to fix what is obviously a problem. After all they are not Microsoft...
-----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:13 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VM lockup due to storage typo Seems to me that he said it was either an integrity problem or a defect. I would think that either would me meat for the APAR grinder. Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:50 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: VM lockup due to storage typo > > So are you saying that what Lee and I both did to shoot our systems > should APAR'able? Or should it be a requirement? Or is it going to > be a "your gun, your foot" answer? > > > Marcy > > "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. > If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the > addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based > on this message or any information herein. If you have received this > message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail > and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:45 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: [IBMVM] VM lockup due to storage typo > > On Tuesday, 09/15/2009 at 03:27 EDT, Steve Marak > <sama...@gizmoworks.com> > wrote: > > I agree with that ("the guest cannot be allowed to harm CP") but has > that > > actually been formally - or even informally - accepted by the Powers > That > > Be? > > Yes, it is in the Statement of System Integrity in the > General Information Manual. > > > I ask because I still remember, as though it were > yesterday, opening a > > security/integrity APAR against VM back in the mid-1980's > because any > > class G user could knock CP down by defining a shared and a > nonshared > > device on the same virtual control unit, and being told > that that was > NOT > > a security or integrity issue, and that no fix would be forthcoming. > > Under "today's" rules, that would be an Integrity problem. > > o If a class G (only) user can repeatedly or with malice of > forethought hang or abend CP, it WILL be classified as an > integrity problem (denial of service). > > o If a class G user happens to do something that triggers an > abend or hang due to a "system malfunction", it will NOT be > classified as an integrity problem. > > o If the system abends or hangs because it is overloaded > (memory, CPU), it will NOT be classified as an integrity problem. > > o Just because it isn't an integrity problem doesn't mean it > isn't a defect. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott >
