In 50176649.9050...@gmail.com, on 07/31/2012
at 12:59 PM, David Crayford dcrayf...@gmail.com said:
On 31/07/2012 12:09 PM, Steve Comstock wrote:
I never saw an answer from you regarding my question for some examples
of how other non-primitive OS's provide a simple way a program can
protect
Storage protection in other OSes:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:09:07 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
Sigh. I keep forgetting (wishful thinking?) what a primitive OS z/OS is;
that it provides no simple way a program can protect its storage from
meddling by others. z/OS still thinks it's running on a
On 7/31/2012 at 11:27 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
But I suspect (with no evidence whatever) that Linux for z can run
a number of processes in private address spaces with better performance
than USS can run the same processes in shared address spaces.
I can't speak to the
On 7/31/2012 9:27 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Storage protection in other OSes:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:09:07 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
Sigh. I keep forgetting (wishful thinking?) what a primitive OS z/OS is;
that it provides no simple way a program can protect its storage from
meddling by
List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:17 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function
On 7/31/2012 9:27 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Storage protection in other OSes:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:09:07
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function
I think gil is protesting the fact that spawn() can
What about TSO?
On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:17, Steve Comstock wrote:
We're both familiar with UNIX, which classically runs each process in
a separate address space. How much simpler or more effective
could it be? Likewise z/VM.
Yes, well, each batch job runs in a separate address space,
Comstock
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:17 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function
On 7/31/2012 9:27 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Storage protection in other OSes:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:09:07 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote:
Sigh. I keep forgetting
of TennesseeSM and The
MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler
On 7/31/2012 10:56 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
What about TSO?
On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:17, Steve Comstock wrote:
We're both familiar with UNIX, which classically runs each process in
a separate address space. How much simpler or more effective
could it be? Likewise z/VM.
Yes, well, each
On 7/24/2012 9:16 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:05:00 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
:Why have such a special list rather than merely verifying that the program
:resides in an APF authorized library and was linked with AC=1?
Because a program expecting to be a job-step task
On 31/07/2012 12:09 PM, Steve Comstock wrote:
On 7/24/2012 9:16 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:05:00 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
:Why have such a special list rather than merely verifying that the
program
:resides in an APF authorized library and was linked with AC=1?
Excellent, better yet what about a authorized rexx function callable via rexx
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Jul 24, 2012, at 3:05 AM, Binyamin Dissen bdis...@dissensoftware.com wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:57:09 -0500 Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
wrote:
:On Mon, 23 Jul 2012
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:16 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:05:00 +0300, Binyamin
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:16:27 -0500 Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
wrote:
:On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:05:00 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
::Why have such a special list rather than merely verifying that the program
::resides in an APF authorized library and was linked with AC=1?
:Because a
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:51:33 -0500, McKown, John
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote:
Also, remember that we are talking about TSO. An archaic piece of software,
which IBM has just seeming lost interest in. Imagine what could
be done if the non-APF user code ran in a subspace, like CICS uses.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 12:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Authorized Rexx Assembler Function
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:51:33 -0500, McKown, John
In 6efdefc7-f5c2-48b9-ba6f-8b0b41b99...@googlegroups.com, on
07/23/2012
at 07:35 PM, Garry G. Green garryg.gr...@yahoo.com said:
Of particular interest is how APF is handled in a TSO environment.
Note that TSO in the free MVS did not have the parallel TMP, so ISPF
could not depend on the
keys and now you an
execute ANY instruction!
On Thursday, 23 December 2010 23:14:12 UTC-5, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
At 22:15 +0100 on 12/23/2010, Lindy Mayfield wrote about Re:
Authorized Rexx Assembler Function:
gt;Why on earth would one write an SVC to put an address into
gt
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:35:04 -0700, Garry G. Green wrote:
Also TSO has an APF list. When you request invocation of a program that is on
the APF list (today this is in Parmlib IKJTSO; in the SPF days it was a zap to
IKJEFTE2/8) - instead of running the program, IKJEFT02 posts IKJEFT01
20 matches
Mail list logo
