Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote in message news:014501cb2827$10d71dc0$328559...@org... Where / what exactly are you reading and where? I have spent so much time in the past 48 hours with so many manuals I have no idea where I got that idea exactly. Sorry. Yes, via SMFPRMxx update and a SET SMF=xx command. Psychology question, not a technology question: In the opinion of the readers of this list, would most shops consider that a routine thing or would they consider it a potentially disruptive thing? In other words, if a vendor's documentation or support response said update your SMFPRMxx and issue a SET SMF=xxx would most shops be likely to say oh, okay or would most shops say in your dreams -- we'll do this at the next scheduled IPL? Charles I never had any problems with SET SMF=xx. I even enlarged and/or added MAN datasets in flight on production systems with a series of I SMF and SET SMF=xx commands. Kees. For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
One more question if I may: Am I correct in my reading of System Commands that there is no way to activate an additional SMF exit short of stopping and starting SMF? That there is no system command that will activate an additional exit point while SMF is running? That there is no non-disruptive way to turn on IEFU83? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Scott Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 11:39 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 Charles If you are installing IEFU83 via CSVDYNEX then the following points may be of interest : (o) IEFU83 must be specified in the EXITS() keyword for each SMF subsystem where the record can be written (o) Note that this is specified as IEFU83 in SMFPRMxx and *not* the name of your exit module - all you are doing here is enabling the exit point, the name of your exit module is set via the CSVDYNEX service later on. (o) You *must* ensure that IEFU83 is enabled in each SMF subsystem that the record can be written from. There is a gotcha here when a site has defined either or both of the STC and JES2 subsystems as you need to ensure that SYSSTC.IEFU83 and SYSJES2.IEFU83 have been defined along with SYS.IEFU83. There might be other SMF subsystems in play as well and you might have to cater for those as well. -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:21:14 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: One more question if I may: Am I correct in my reading of System Commands that there is no way to activate an additional SMF exit short of stopping and starting SMF? That there is no system command that will activate an additional exit point while SMF is running? That there is no non-disruptive way to turn on IEFU83? Charles No, you are not correct. All of the SMF exits are dynamic whether explicitly defined in PROGxx or implicitly defined to the dynamic exits facility via specifications in SMFPRMxx.You can add / change / delete them at any time via PROGxx EXIT statements (or equivalent operator commands) in combination with SMFPRMxx changes. You can see what is currently defined via D PROG,EXIT. Regards, Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:mzel...@flash.net Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Mark, I believe that Charles is questioning activating an exit that is not specified in the EXITS statement. For example, if EXITS(IEFU83) is coded in SMFPRMxx, then can he then add IEFU84 without an IPL? John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:41 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 No, you are not correct. All of the SMF exits are dynamic whether explicitly defined in PROGxx or implicitly defined to the dynamic exits facility via specifications in SMFPRMxx.You can add / change / delete them at any time via PROGxx EXIT statements (or equivalent operator commands) in combination with SMFPRMxx changes. You can see what is currently defined via D PROG,EXIT. Regards, Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:mzel...@flash.net Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Right. I have been educated by this group on the difference between an exit and an exit routine. If an exit is defined, you can assign a routine to it dynamically. The question is if an exit is not defined, can you define it dynamically? My reading is no, but I would love to be wrong. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of John P. Baker Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 Mark, I believe that Charles is questioning activating an exit that is not specified in the EXITS statement. For example, if EXITS(IEFU83) is coded in SMFPRMxx, then can he then add IEFU84 without an IPL? -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
AFAIK, if an exit is not defined in SMFPRMxx, then you need to define it in SMFPRMxx and activate the new SMFPRMxx dynamically, via operator command (SET SMF=xx). Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org 7/20/2010 9:54 AM Right. I have been educated by this group on the difference between an exit and an exit routine. If an exit is defined, you can assign a routine to it dynamically. The question is if an exit is not defined, can you define it dynamically? My reading is no, but I would love to be wrong. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of John P. Baker Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 Mark, I believe that Charles is questioning activating an exit that is not specified in the EXITS statement. For example, if EXITS(IEFU83) is coded in SMFPRMxx, then can he then add IEFU84 without an IPL? -- 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 CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you. -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
The answer to your question is yes. IF the exit is already available in LPA, then an updated SMFPRMxx is all that is needed and it will get defined. Or you can define it via PROGxx EXIT statements and also add it to dynamic exits - but an SMFPRMxx change is still needed to activate it (tell SMF to take that exit point). EXIT ADD is similar (or the same) as a dynamic LPA ADD in this case. You could just use PROGxx LPA ADD to get the module into dynamic LPA and update SMFPRMxx and activate it. Oh... sorry that I think I used the terminology wrongly below. If you define the exit in PROGxx EXIT (or commands) only, I think it would be implicit. Adding the exit in SMFPRMxx explicitly defines it. Either way, a D PROG,EXIT will show you the current state. Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:mzel...@flash.net Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:49:28 -0400, John P. Baker john.ba...@hfdtechs.com wrote: Mark, I believe that Charles is questioning activating an exit that is not specified in the EXITS statement. For example, if EXITS(IEFU83) is coded in SMFPRMxx, then can he then add IEFU84 without an IPL? John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:41 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 No, you are not correct. All of the SMF exits are dynamic whether explicitly defined in PROGxx or implicitly defined to the dynamic exits facility via specifications in SMFPRMxx.You can add / change / delete them at any time via PROGxx EXIT statements (or equivalent operator commands) in combination with SMFPRMxx changes. You can see what is currently defined via D PROG,EXIT. Regards, Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:mzel...@flash.net Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:54:35 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: If an exit is defined, you can assign a routine to it dynamically. The question is if an exit is not defined, can you define it dynamically? My reading is no, but I would love to be wrong. Yes, via SMFPRMxx update and a SET SMF=xx command. Where / what exactly are you reading and where? Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:mzel...@flash.net Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Where / what exactly are you reading and where? I have spent so much time in the past 48 hours with so many manuals I have no idea where I got that idea exactly. Sorry. Yes, via SMFPRMxx update and a SET SMF=xx command. Psychology question, not a technology question: In the opinion of the readers of this list, would most shops consider that a routine thing or would they consider it a potentially disruptive thing? In other words, if a vendor's documentation or support response said update your SMFPRMxx and issue a SET SMF=xxx would most shops be likely to say oh, okay or would most shops say in your dreams -- we'll do this at the next scheduled IPL? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:23 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:54:35 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: If an exit is defined, you can assign a routine to it dynamically. The question is if an exit is not defined, can you define it dynamically? My reading is no, but I would love to be wrong. Yes, via SMFPRMxx update and a SET SMF=xx command. Where / what exactly are you reading and where? -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:17:35 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Where / what exactly are you reading and where? I have spent so much time in the past 48 hours with so many manuals I have no idea where I got that idea exactly. Sorry. Yes, via SMFPRMxx update and a SET SMF=xx command. Psychology question, not a technology question: In the opinion of the readers of this list, would most shops consider that a routine thing or would they consider it a potentially disruptive thing? In other words, if a vendor's documentation or support response said update your SMFPRMxx and issue a SET SMF=xxx would most shops be likely to say oh, okay or would most shops say in your dreams -- we'll do this at the next scheduled IPL? I can only speak for myself. For a sandbox, I would do it dynamically and save the time of an IPL. Development or production: during a scheduled change window going through proper change control. In my current shop, that is usually done via rolling IPLs in a sysplex, but it could be done dynamically without an IPL also (as long as the change was tested / verified first). So if I were the vendor writing the doc, I would say something like either implement the updated parm via SET SMF=xx or IPL. Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:mzel...@flash.net Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
It all depends on the changes involved. In my situation, I share the SMFPRMxx member across all systems, so I can make a minor change and activate it on my test system to make sure there are no errors. So if a vendor product asked for an SMF exit to be activated, I wouldn't consider it a big deal. It would have to go through change control, of course, but it wouldn't require an IPL. Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org 7/20/2010 12:17 PM Where / what exactly are you reading and where? I have spent so much time in the past 48 hours with so many manuals I have no idea where I got that idea exactly. Sorry. Yes, via SMFPRMxx update and a SET SMF=xx command. Psychology question, not a technology question: In the opinion of the readers of this list, would most shops consider that a routine thing or would they consider it a potentially disruptive thing? In other words, if a vendor's documentation or support response said update your SMFPRMxx and issue a SET SMF=xxx would most shops be likely to say oh, okay or would most shops say in your dreams -- we'll do this at the next scheduled IPL? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:23 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:54:35 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: If an exit is defined, you can assign a routine to it dynamically. The question is if an exit is not defined, can you define it dynamically? My reading is no, but I would love to be wrong. Yes, via SMFPRMxx update and a SET SMF=xx command. Where / what exactly are you reading and where? -- 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 CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you. -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
In other words, if a vendor's documentation or support response said update your SMFPRMxx and issue a SET SMF=xxx would most shops be likely to say oh, okay or would most shops say in your dreams -- we'll do this at the next scheduled IPL? Yes! And, yes! It depends. Results may vary. Believe at your own risk. All levity aside, every shop has a different attitude towards that. - I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation! Kimota! -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
snip-- Psychology question, not a technology question: In the opinion of the readers of this list, would most shops consider that a routine thing or would they consider it a potentially disruptive thing? In other words, if a vendor's documentation or support response said update your SMFPRMxx and issue a SET SMF=xxx would most shops be likely to say oh, okay or would most shops say in your dreams -- we'll do this at the next scheduled IPL? unsnip--- For me, it's no big deal. I'm sure that most Sysprogs will check the docs to be sure that your change will be as you describe it. After all, changing SMFPRMxx is not a high-risk exercise. Rick -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:17:35 -0700 Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: :Psychology question, not a technology question: In the opinion of the :readers of this list, would most shops consider that a routine thing or :would they consider it a potentially disruptive thing? Depends on how you sell it. :In other words, if a vendor's documentation or support response said update :your SMFPRMxx and issue a SET SMF=xxx would most shops be likely to say :oh, okay or would most shops say in your dreams -- we'll do this at the :next scheduled IPL? I would expect OK. The bigger issue might be with those that already have the 83/84/85 as to how yours might affect things. -- Binyamin Dissen bdis...@dissensoftware.com http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Charles If you are installing IEFU83 via CSVDYNEX then the following points may be of interest : (o) IEFU83 must be specified in the EXITS() keyword for each SMF subsystem where the record can be written (o) Note that this is specified as IEFU83 in SMFPRMxx and *not* the name of your exit module - all you are doing here is enabling the exit point, the name of your exit module is set via the CSVDYNEX service later on. (o) You *must* ensure that IEFU83 is enabled in each SMF subsystem that the record can be written from. There is a gotcha here when a site has defined either or both of the STC and JES2 subsystems as you need to ensure that SYSSTC.IEFU83 and SYSJES2.IEFU83 have been defined along with SYS.IEFU83. There might be other SMF subsystems in play as well and you might have to cater for those as well. (o) Normally I would not expect to have to alter the PROGxx or EXITxx PARMLIB members when installing/defining IEFU83 via CSVDYNEX. (o) I would advise sticking in some diagnostic/accounting capabilities in the IEFU83 exit while you have the hood up. (o) When debugging this sort of thing for a customer site, it is always worth getting a copy of their SMFPRMxx and the output from a D SMF,O command. Rob Scott Lead Developer Rocket Software 275 Grove Street * Newton, MA 02466-2272 * USA Tel: +1.617.614.2305 Email: rsc...@rs.com Web: www.rocketsoftware.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: 18 July 2010 21:44 To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 I.o.w.: check that site's SMFPRMxx I hope someone is reading this on a Sunday ... Please have patience with me. I'm a developer not a sysprog and I know many things but I am not (yet!) an SMF exit expert. I didn't write the code in question. I'm trying to figure out the right question to ask a customer. I've spent a lot of time reading SMFPRMxx, PROGxx, and EXITxx documentation. If an IEFU83 exit is to be added via CSVDYNEX REQUEST=ADD, what has to exist or not exist in SMFPRMxx, PROGxx, and EXITxx in order for the exit to be invoked? (Please for now assume that the CSVDYNEX and the exit itself are valid, and that SMF is configured to write Type 80 records.) I'm trying to understand the statement EXITS specifies which SMF exits are to be invoked. A maximum of 15 exits is allowed; if an exit is not specified, it is not invoked. If this parameter is not specified, SMF behaves as if this parameter is specified with all 15 exits listed here and all SMF system exits are invoked. How do you specify that an exit is to be invoked if the name is not known at IPL time? If a customer were not currently using U83 but had an SMFPRMxx member that specified other exits and not U83, what change would the customer have to make in order for the CSVDYNEX ADD to be effective and have the added exit module invoked? Charles bm-main.html -- 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 -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote in message news:00c901cb26b9$f359e070$da0da1...@org... I.o.w.: check that site's SMFPRMxx I hope someone is reading this on a Sunday ... Please have patience with me. I'm a developer not a sysprog and I know many things but I am not (yet!) an SMF exit expert. I didn't write the code in question. I'm trying to figure out the right question to ask a customer. I've spent a lot of time reading SMFPRMxx, PROGxx, and EXITxx documentation. Charles, I was not clear about my SMFPRMxx piont: I meant to check whether the particular SMF record was indeed recorded by the TYPE(nn) or not excluded by the NOTYPE(nn) statements. Kees. For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
If an IEFU83 exit is to be added via CSVDYNEX REQUEST=ADD It never is. You add an exit routine (module) to an exit. At an exit point, the system calls exit routine(s) associated with the exit. What has to exist or not exist in SMFPRMxx, PROGxx, and EXITxx in order for the exit to be invoked? EXITxx is not relevant for SMF exits. Nothing has to exist in PROGxx. Things *can* exist. -- SMFPRMxx defines what exits are to be called. This is within the EXITS statement which may exist for both the SYS and SUBSYS statements. Those exits identified on the SYS statement have exit name SYS.. Those exits identified on a SUBSYS statement have exit name SYSyyy.xxx. -- If PROGxx does not add exit routines to those exits, then the system adds an exit routine of the default name to the exit point (e.g., IEFU29) I'm trying to understand the statement ... If an exit is identified on an EXITS statement (or if the EXITS statement is omitted), then it will be called. Otherwise it will not. How do you specify that an exit is to be invoked if the name is not known at IPL time? You do know the name of the exit at IPL time. You might not know the name of the exit routine(s). If a customer were not currently using U83 but had an SMFPRMxx member that specified other exits and not U83, what change would the customer have to make in order for the CSVDYNEX ADD to be effective and have the added exit module invoked? The customer needs to have an SMFPRMxx member that specifies all the exits he wants. Thus he must create an SMFPRMxx member that in addition to the exits he already specified now adds the IEFU83 exit(s) needed. If you have associated an exit routine with an exit that is not defined, a DISPLAY PROG,EXIT will show that exit as implicitly defined. Exit routines are not called for an implicitly defined exit. The association of routine with exit is, at that point, just a data correlation. Once an updated SMFPRMxx is in effect, the exit will be defined, and the exit routine(s) will be instantiated (if needed) and called. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Thank you, thank you, thank you Rob, Peter, and Kees. This is exactly the information I was looking for. This should enable us to solve it. I spent a lot of time yesterday with Init Tuning and Exits but there are so many descriptions in there that were layered on top of each other over time -- it's hard to parse all of the information and integrate it. I would advise sticking in some diagnostic/accounting capabilities in the IEFU83 exit while you have the hood up. You betcha! I didn't write this code. I am an old hand at the process of designing vendor software for ease of debugging at a customer site. I am going to re-write this code, and trust me, you will be able to tell exactly how far it got and where it failed. I'm going to start a new thread to ask a related question right now. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:40 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 If an IEFU83 exit is to be added via CSVDYNEX REQUEST=ADD It never is. You add an exit routine (module) to an exit. At an exit point, the system calls exit routine(s) associated with the exit. -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
I.o.w.: check that site's SMFPRMxx I hope someone is reading this on a Sunday ... Please have patience with me. I'm a developer not a sysprog and I know many things but I am not (yet!) an SMF exit expert. I didn't write the code in question. I'm trying to figure out the right question to ask a customer. I've spent a lot of time reading SMFPRMxx, PROGxx, and EXITxx documentation. If an IEFU83 exit is to be added via CSVDYNEX REQUEST=ADD, what has to exist or not exist in SMFPRMxx, PROGxx, and EXITxx in order for the exit to be invoked? (Please for now assume that the CSVDYNEX and the exit itself are valid, and that SMF is configured to write Type 80 records.) I'm trying to understand the statement EXITS specifies which SMF exits are to be invoked. A maximum of 15 exits is allowed; if an exit is not specified, it is not invoked. If this parameter is not specified, SMF behaves as if this parameter is specified with all 15 exits listed here and all SMF system exits are invoked. How do you specify that an exit is to be invoked if the name is not known at IPL time? If a customer were not currently using U83 but had an SMFPRMxx member that specified other exits and not U83, what change would the customer have to make in order for the CSVDYNEX ADD to be effective and have the added exit module invoked? Charles bm-main.html -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:25:06 -0700 Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: :Does anyone know - for writing SMF records for invalid logons and access :violations detected by RACF, does RACF use the SMFEWTM interface that :invokes IEFU83? Or does it (ever?) use the branch entry or x-memory branch :entry that invokes IEFU84 or IEFU85? :What about ACF2? In my opinion it is a bad practice to presume which among 83/84/85 will receive control for a specific record type/subtype. Have all three call the same routine and write the routine in a restrictive way. -- Binyamin Dissen bdis...@dissensoftware.com http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:25:06 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Does anyone know - for writing SMF records for invalid logons and access violations detected by RACF, does RACF use the SMFEWTM interface that invokes IEFU83? Or does it (ever?) use the branch entry or x-memory branch entry that invokes IEFU84 or IEFU85? It's not something we document, and therefore it's not safe for you to make any assumptions about it even if it were the case that today we always use a particular method. In general if you want to trap SMF records you should implement all 3 exits, in my opinion. -- Walt Farrell IBM STSM, z/OS Security Design -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Thanks guys. I agree. The problem is I do not at this moment have the luxury of deciding which interfaces to implement. I have just taken responsibility for code that someone else wrote and that is written only to the standards of IEFU83. It is not working in a particular shop and I am trying to figure out why. It has little in the way of debugging features built into it, and I am reluctant at this moment to make *any* changes to the code. I don't have the time at the moment -- I will -- to take full responsibility for the code. Until I have the time I don't want to touch a thing and potentially make things worse. So I'm looking for clues to why it does not work, not design advice. With that caveat, would anyone care to answer my original question? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 5:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:25:06 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Does anyone know - for writing SMF records for invalid logons and access violations detected by RACF, does RACF use the SMFEWTM interface that invokes IEFU83? Or does it (ever?) use the branch entry or x-memory branch entry that invokes IEFU84 or IEFU85? It's not something we document, and therefore it's not safe for you to make any assumptions about it even if it were the case that today we always use a particular method. In general if you want to trap SMF records you should implement all 3 exits, in my opinion. -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Could you explain exactly *what* is not working? Kees. Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote in message news:00d501cb24e8$c6cb0e80$54612b...@org... Thanks guys. I agree. The problem is I do not at this moment have the luxury of deciding which interfaces to implement. I have just taken responsibility for code that someone else wrote and that is written only to the standards of IEFU83. It is not working in a particular shop and I am trying to figure out why. It has little in the way of debugging features built into it, and I am reluctant at this moment to make *any* changes to the code. I don't have the time at the moment -- I will -- to take full responsibility for the code. Until I have the time I don't want to touch a thing and potentially make things worse. So I'm looking for clues to why it does not work, not design advice. With that caveat, would anyone care to answer my original question? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 5:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:25:06 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Does anyone know - for writing SMF records for invalid logons and access violations detected by RACF, does RACF use the SMFEWTM interface that invokes IEFU83? Or does it (ever?) use the branch entry or x-memory branch entry that invokes IEFU84 or IEFU85? It's not something we document, and therefore it's not safe for you to make any assumptions about it even if it were the case that today we always use a particular method. In general if you want to trap SMF records you should implement all 3 exits, in my opinion. -- 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 For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
If not working means that the IEFU83 is not being driven for one or more of the expected SMF records, then the most likely explanation is that either U84 or U85 is being driven instead. As suggested earlier, anyone hoping to intercept SMF records should install code in all three exit points - it is most likely that the majority of the intercept code can be common between them, just remember that the environments on entry can be different (eg x-memory under certain circumstances). Rob Scott Lead Developer Rocket Software 275 Grove Street * Newton, MA 02466-2272 * USA Tel: +1.617.614.2305 Email: rsc...@rs.com Web: www.rocketsoftware.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: 16 July 2010 14:14 To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 Thanks guys. I agree. The problem is I do not at this moment have the luxury of deciding which interfaces to implement. I have just taken responsibility for code that someone else wrote and that is written only to the standards of IEFU83. It is not working in a particular shop and I am trying to figure out why. It has little in the way of debugging features built into it, and I am reluctant at this moment to make *any* changes to the code. I don't have the time at the moment -- I will -- to take full responsibility for the code. Until I have the time I don't want to touch a thing and potentially make things worse. So I'm looking for clues to why it does not work, not design advice. With that caveat, would anyone care to answer my original question? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 5:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:25:06 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Does anyone know - for writing SMF records for invalid logons and access violations detected by RACF, does RACF use the SMFEWTM interface that invokes IEFU83? Or does it (ever?) use the branch entry or x-memory branch entry that invokes IEFU84 or IEFU85? It's not something we document, and therefore it's not safe for you to make any assumptions about it even if it were the case that today we always use a particular method. In general if you want to trap SMF records you should implement all 3 exits, in my opinion. -- 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 -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
The exit is supposed to queue certain Type 80 records for another process which then transmits them to a collector via TCP/IP. Nothing is arriving at the collector. The TCP/IP connectivity appears to exist, so the problem would appear to be that the exit is not getting driven, at least not for the records it is coded to process. The exit works in other environments so it's not that the code is totally wrong. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Vernooij, CP - SPLXM Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 6:28 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 Could you explain exactly *what* is not working? Kees. Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote in message news:00d501cb24e8$c6cb0e80$54612b...@org... Thanks guys. I agree. The problem is I do not at this moment have the luxury of deciding which interfaces to implement. I have just taken responsibility for code that someone else wrote and that is written only to the standards of IEFU83. It is not working in a particular shop and I am trying to figure out why. It has little in the way of debugging features built into it, and I am reluctant at this moment to make *any* changes to the code. I don't have the time at the moment -- I will -- to take full responsibility for the code. Until I have the time I don't want to touch a thing and potentially make things worse. So I'm looking for clues to why it does not work, not design advice. With that caveat, would anyone care to answer my original question? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 5:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:25:06 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Does anyone know - for writing SMF records for invalid logons and access violations detected by RACF, does RACF use the SMFEWTM interface that invokes IEFU83? Or does it (ever?) use the branch entry or x-memory branch entry that invokes IEFU84 or IEFU85? It's not something we document, and therefore it's not safe for you to make any assumptions about it even if it were the case that today we always use a particular method. In general if you want to trap SMF records you should implement all 3 exits, in my opinion. -- 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 For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 -- 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 -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Charles Mills wrote: The exit is supposed to queue certain Type 80 records for another process which then transmits them to a collector via TCP/IP. Nothing is arriving at the collector. The TCP/IP connectivity appears to exist, so the problem would appear to be that the exit is not getting driven, at least not for the records it is coded to process. The exit works in other environments so it's not that the code is totally wrong. You should have said that in the first post... Perhaps the 'collector' or your TCP/IP settings is blocking the transmission of the records... Are you not suppressing the SMF records? Perhaps the callers needed to be configured to write out SMF records in the first place. That is all I can think of now... Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:14:09 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Thanks guys. I agree. The problem is I do not at this moment have the luxury of deciding which interfaces to implement. I have just taken responsibility for code that someone else wrote and that is written only to the standards of IEFU83. It is not working in a particular shop and I am trying to figure out why. It has little in the way of debugging features built into it, and I am reluctant at this moment to make *any* changes to the code. I don't have the time at the moment -- I will -- to take full responsibility for the code. Until I have the time I don't want to touch a thing and potentially make things worse. So I'm looking for clues to why it does not work, not design advice. With that caveat, would anyone care to answer my original question? Well, I have to admit that I don't feel like looking through all the code right now to see how RACF issues the records in all the different circumstances. But I will point out that although some RACROUTE invocations support only non-cross-memory task mode, others support cross-memory task mode, and some support SRB mode. From that I would expect that we probably utilize most (if not all) of the allowable methods of writing our SMF records in some code path or another. For the failing cases, are you sure that the SMF records are being created at all? Have you seen them in the source system's SMF data sets or SMF log streams? If not, that should be your starting point. If they are there, but your exit is not seeing them, then you know that it's because you need one or more of the other exits. If you are missing specific records, from specific functions, for specific applications that would also provide more diagnostic information. -- Walt Farrell IBM STSM, z/OS Security Design -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Thanks all. You've provided some clues. It's a difficult problem resolution environment. It's a potential customer's production z box. There are language and time zone and turf barriers. It's not possible to just try this or test that. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 Well, I have to admit that I don't feel like looking through all the code right now to see how RACF issues the records in all the different circumstances. But I will point out that although some RACROUTE invocations support only non-cross-memory task mode, others support cross-memory task mode, and some support SRB mode. From that I would expect that we probably utilize most (if not all) of the allowable methods of writing our SMF records in some code path or another. For the failing cases, are you sure that the SMF records are being created at all? Have you seen them in the source system's SMF data sets or SMF log streams? If not, that should be your starting point. If they are there, but your exit is not seeing them, then you know that it's because you need one or more of the other exits. If you are missing specific records, from specific functions, for specific applications that would also provide more diagnostic information. -- Walt Farrell IBM STSM, z/OS Security Design -- 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 -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Elardus Engelbrecht elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za wrote in message news:listserv%201007160859208856.0...@bama.ua.edu... Charles Mills wrote: The exit is supposed to queue certain Type 80 records for another process which then transmits them to a collector via TCP/IP. Nothing is arriving at the collector. The TCP/IP connectivity appears to exist, so the problem would appear to be that the exit is not getting driven, at least not for the records it is coded to process. The exit works in other environments so it's not that the code is totally wrong. You should have said that in the first post... Perhaps the 'collector' or your TCP/IP settings is blocking the transmission of the records... Are you not suppressing the SMF records? Perhaps the callers needed to be configured to write out SMF records in the first place. That is all I can think of now... Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht I.o.w.: check that site's SMFPRMxx. Kees. For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
snip-- :Does anyone know - for writing SMF records for invalid logons and access :violations detected by RACF, does RACF use the SMFEWTM interface that :invokes IEFU83? Or does it (ever?) use the branch entry or x-memory branch :entry that invokes IEFU84 or IEFU85? :What about ACF2? In my opinion it is a bad practice to presume which among 83/84/85 will receive control for a specific record type/subtype. Have all three call the same routine and write the routine in a restrictive way. ---unsnip Ben, that's very sound advice, but the exit writeing person MUST be aware of any restrictions in the invoking environment. One example: you WILL use the branch entry to WTO if you need to write messages to the operator from IEFU84. Research and careful planning are mandatory, expecially in this particular exit. Rick -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net wrote: Ben, that's very sound advice, but the exit writeing person MUST be aware of any restrictions in the invoking environment. One example: you WILL use the branch entry to WTO if you need to write messages to the operator from IEFU84. Research and careful planning are mandatory, expecially in this particular exit. http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html Actually Rick, that's very sound advice for ALL exits. :-) -- This email might be from the artist formerly known as CC (or not) You be the judge. -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
-snip- Ben, that's very sound advice, but the exit writeing person MUST be aware of any restrictions in the invoking environment. One example: you WILL use the branch entry to WTO if you need to write messages to the operator from IEFU84. Research and careful planning are mandatory, expecially in this particular exit. http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html Actually Rick, that's very sound advice for ALL exits. :-) -unsnip--- Unfortunately, all too often ignored, Chris. Rick -- 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
Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Hi Charles, Even without making any changes to any of the SMF processes, perhaps a test of the data transfer might be in order, expecially since you said that the code works elsewhere. Can you send test data across the TCP/IP path that the process is supposed to use? HTH, Linda Mooney - Original Message - From: Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 6:14:09 AM Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 Thanks guys. I agree. The problem is I do not at this moment have the luxury of deciding which interfaces to implement. I have just taken responsibility for code that someone else wrote and that is written only to the standards of IEFU83. It is not working in a particular shop and I am trying to figure out why. It has little in the way of debugging features built into it, and I am reluctant at this moment to make *any* changes to the code. I don't have the time at the moment -- I will -- to take full responsibility for the code. Until I have the time I don't want to touch a thing and potentially make things worse. So I'm looking for clues to why it does not work, not design advice. With that caveat, would anyone care to answer my original question? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 5:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:25:06 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Does anyone know - for writing SMF records for invalid logons and access violations detected by RACF, does RACF use the SMFEWTM interface that invokes IEFU83? Or does it (ever?) use the branch entry or x-memory branch entry that invokes IEFU84 or IEFU85? It's not something we document, and therefore it's not safe for you to make any assumptions about it even if it were the case that today we always use a particular method. In general if you want to trap SMF records you should implement all 3 exits, in my opinion. -- 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 -- 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
IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Does anyone know - for writing SMF records for invalid logons and access violations detected by RACF, does RACF use the SMFEWTM interface that invokes IEFU83? Or does it (ever?) use the branch entry or x-memory branch entry that invokes IEFU84 or IEFU85? What about ACF2? Thanks, Charles Mills -- 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
