Hello,
I have an IEFU84 exit that, when entered holding the local lock, schedules
an SRB; typically for record type 30, subtypes 2 and 3. All works as
expected, except that the JWT value in the SMFPRMxx member ceases to be
honoured.
Is this expected behaviour and if so why?
Thanks
Steve
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:18:25 +0100, Steve Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have an IEFU84 exit that, when entered holding the local lock, schedules
>an SRB; typically for record type 30, subtypes 2 and 3. All works as
>expected, except that the JWT value i
Yes I'm scheduling the SRB in the primary address space; the address space
in which my IEFU84 routine is being driven.
It looks like I'll have to schedule the SRB in my server address space
instead.
Thanks
Steve
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mai
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
t;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
http://www.dis
t;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
lt 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 wrote:
>Does anyone know - for writing SMF records for invalid logons and access
>violations detected by RACF, does RACF use the S
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 A
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
-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IEFU83, IEFU84 and IEFU85
Could you explain exactly *what* is not working?
Kees.
"Charles Mills" wrote in message
news:<00d501cb24e8$c6cb0e80$54612b...@org>...
> Thanks guys. I agree.
>
> The problem is I do not at this moment hav
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 driv
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:14:09 -0700, Charles Mills 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 IEF
t."
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
"Elardus Engelbrecht" wrote in message
news:...
> 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 pr
h
:>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
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Rick Fochtman 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. :-)
Unfortunately, all t
Mooney
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Mills"
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 impleme
> 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
---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 ...
Pl
"Charles Mills" 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
>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?
ion 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
poi
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
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:21:14 -0700, Charles Mills 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 exi
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
-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
m-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
ting 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 Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:54:35 -0700, Charles Mills 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 co
y
"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-MA
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:17:35 -0700, Charles Mills 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.
>
>Psyc
---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 wrote:
>
>If an exit is def
>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.
Belie
--
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 v
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:17:35 -0700 Charles Mills 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 oth
"Charles Mills" 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
SMF Record 30 is documented as being written via SMFEWTM BRANCH=YES and IEFU84
is called.
Installation exits states: "An FRR is set up by the module that calls IEFU84".
Research shows that if the SMFEWTM BRANCH=YES is issued unlocked and in task
mode, as is done for some occupancies
38 matches
Mail list logo
