From: Peter Nuttall
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:48:46 +0200
Yes to all of that Puzzled me too ... Never seen it before I am
aware of the concatenation restriction on APF authorised load libraries
(and the integrity reasoning behind it), but there are no steplibs in the
job and the
Peter Nuttal wrote:
Just wondered if anybody else has come across this phenomenon. We are
z/OS 01.09.00. Have a job running a set of IEBCOPY steps and the 8th step
failed with :
IEB1099E *** IEBCOPY IS NOT APF AUTHORIZED ***
All the other steps worked ... The rerun of the job from the
quote
All the other steps worked ... The rerun of the job from the failing step
worked successfully
Lets see. Rerun works. Without ANY changes at all?
Anyone got any ideas ?
After reviewing all replies up to now, I'm thinking something changed the
APF
list just before step 8. Check
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu wrote on 04/20/2010
07:24:56 AM:
Yes to all of that Puzzled me too ... Never seen it before I
am
aware of the concatenation restriction on APF authorised load
libraries
(and the integrity reasoning behind it), but there are no
---snip-
From: Peter Nuttall
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:48:46 +0200
Yes to all of that Puzzled me too ... Never seen it before I am
aware of the concatenation restriction on APF authorised load libraries
(and the
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:36:30 -0500, Rick Fochtman wrote:
---snip-
From:Peter Nuttall
Date:Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:48:46 +0200
Yes to all of that Puzzled me too ... Never seen it before I am
aware of the
On 20 April 2010 19:16, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
I was envisioning that, as with LINKLIST, a load module loaded
from an authorized catenand would run authorized; a load module
loaded from an unauthorized catenand would run unauthorized.
No security problem. Should have been
Ok, I am puzzled. Whether there is or is not an I/O appendage routine hidden
away inside of dear old IEBCOPY seems immaterial. APF authorization is not
something that just comes and goes within a step. Every new step can be
authorized or not, but if the JOBLIB, STEPLIB or application specific
Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc
Subject
Re: IEBCOPY losing APF authorisation in middle of JOB - etc
Ok, I am puzzled. Whether there is or is not an I/O appendage routine
hidden
away inside of dear old IEBCOPY seems immaterial. APF authorization is not
something
--snip--
Not convinced this a true statment. Back in the late 1970s and early
1980s with MVS, it was wired it into homegrown TSO commands and worked
well. Then with some new release it became authorized. I had Bill
Godfrey (TSSO fame
On 18 April 2010 12:58, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net wrote:
--snip--
Not convinced this a true statment. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s
with MVS, it was wired it into homegrown TSO commands and worked well. Then
with some
IEBCOPY does not need APF authorization for every
operation. Is step 8 doing something different from all
the other steps? Something that might need APF auth.?
Not convinced this a true statment. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s
with MVS, it was wired it into homegrown TSO commands and
Hi All,
Just wondered if anybody else has come across this phenomenon. We are
z/OS 01.09.00. Have a job running a set of IEBCOPY steps and the 8th step
failed with :
IEB1099E *** IEBCOPY IS NOT APF AUTHORIZED ***
All the other steps worked ... The rerun of the job from the failing step
IEBCOPY does not need APF authorization for every
operation. Is step 8 doing something different from all
the other steps? Something that might need APF auth.?
--
Peter Hunkeler
CREDIT SUISSE AG
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
On Fri, Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Hunkeler Peter wrote:
Is step 8 doing something different from all
the other steps? Something that might need APF auth.?
SMP maybe ?.
Just joking.
.
.
I hope.
Shane ...
--
For IBM-MAIN
Hunkeler Peter (KIUP 4) pisze:
IEBCOPY does not need APF authorization for every
operation. Is step 8 doing something different from all
the other steps? Something that might need APF auth.?
AFAIK the above is not exact. IEBCOPY does check APF authorization
before run. Try the following:
Subject
Re: IEBCOPY losing APF authorisation in middle of JOB.
On Fri, Apr 16th, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Hunkeler Peter wrote:
Is step 8 doing something different from all
the other steps? Something that might need APF auth.?
SMP maybe ?.
Just joking.
.
.
I hope.
Shane
List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Peter Nuttall
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IEBCOPY losing APF authorisation in middle of JOB.
Lol Not SMP Just copying members from one library to
another ...
This is part of a change
IEBCOPY does not need APF authorization for every
operation. Is step 8 doing something different from all
the other steps? Something that might need APF auth.?
AFAIK the above is not exact. IEBCOPY does check APF authorization
before run. Try the following: copy IEBCOPY member to your
@bama.ua.edu
To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc
Subject
Re: IEBCOPY losing APF authorisation in middle of JOB.
PDSMAN has a facility called FASTCOPY that will intercept the call to
IEBCOPY (This is in the PDSMAN Parms) and use FASTCOPY instead. You can
tell when FASTCOPY is used because
... When the job was restarted from the failing step, no change
was made to the JOBLIB or the Step itself and it ran successfully
Out of curiosity, and since I just learned that IEBCOPY will
issue message IEB1099I at startup if it finds itself not running APF
authorized: Would you have a look
Let me add one more point.
If you have PDSMAN and it is intercepting IEBCOPY. If the STC for PDSMAN is
down you would only see IEB messages and not FCO. And this could create
some interesting issues.
If you do not use PDSMAN's Fastcopy, then having the PDSMAN STC down would
be less of a
@bama.ua.edu
cc
Subject
Re: IEBCOPY losing APF authorisation in middle of JOB.
Let me add one more point.
If you have PDSMAN and it is intercepting IEBCOPY. If the STC for PDSMAN
is
down you would only see IEB messages and not FCO. And this could create
some interesting issues.
If you do
Peter,
If the expectation is that PDSMAN's FASTCOPY replaces IEBCOPY, then yes, a
change to the $IEBCOPY statement in the parms could have an affect.
Determine the following
1) Is there an LMP Key for FASTCOPY?
2) What was the change that required NEWRULES? Can you compare the
previous parm
respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc
Subject
Re: IEBCOPY losing APF authorisation in middle of JOB.
Peter,
If the expectation is that PDSMAN's FASTCOPY replaces IEBCOPY, then yes, a
change to the $IEBCOPY statement in the parms could
Subject: Re: IEBCOPY losing APF authorisation in middle of JOB.
Thanks Lizette,
Think I'll leave it with the sysprogs for now ...
I did check the Parms though, and FASTCOPY=N is currently set ...
Thanks for the help,
Peter
, April 16, 2010 10:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IEBCOPY losing APF authorisation in middle of JOB.
Thanks Lizette,
Think I'll leave it with the sysprogs for now ...
I did check the Parms though, and FASTCOPY=N is currently set ...
Thanks for the help,
Peter
Have you done something in that job that will affect the library
containing the IEBCOPY program?? NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!
Rick
-
Peter Nuttall wrote:
Hi All,
Just wondered if anybody else has come across this phenomenon. We are
z/OS
28 matches
Mail list logo
