On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:30, you wrote:
> xc & relatives
On further reflection, those fail before they start. However, if they're
subject to an execute instruction I think you have difficulties.
Mind you, if you're contemplating a new CPU design, you can also consider a
microcode update to
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:38, you wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 02:00:14AM +0100, Ulrich Weigand was heard to
remark:
> > Linas Vepstas wrote:
> > >-- if 'exception 04' can be caught and passed back up to the library,
> >
> > Unfortunately it can't, as key-protection violation is a 'terminating'
>
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 02:00:14AM +0100, Ulrich Weigand was heard to remark:
> Linas Vepstas wrote:
>
> >-- if 'exception 04' can be caught and passed back up to the library,
>
> Unfortunately it can't, as key-protection violation is a 'terminating'
> exception condition, which means the CPU sta
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:34, you wrote:
> n Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:10AM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote:
> > The only warning I can think of is that you're going to be running a
> > "development" kernel. Unless you're planning on being part of the
> > development process, providing feedback to the ker
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Linas Vepstas wrote:
>
> >-- if 'exception 04' can be caught and passed back up to the library,
>
> Unfortunately it can't, as key-protection violation is a 'terminating'
> exception condition, which means the CPU state at the time the
> interruption is
Linas Vepstas wrote:
>-- if 'exception 04' can be caught and passed back up to the library,
Unfortunately it can't, as key-protection violation is a 'terminating'
exception condition, which means the CPU state at the time the
interruption is delivered is undefined. This means that the instruction
Mark,
You were giving me the answer all the time. I was so sure I was IPLing from
the correct device. I had an IPLable image on two disks and didn't realize
I was booting from the wrong one.
Thanks,
Betsie Spann
VM Systems Programmer
- Original Message -
From: "Post, Mark K" <[EMAIL PROTE
Betsie,
Sorry I haven't gotten back to you on this sooner. I'm assuming you're
IPLing from device number 200? If not, then which unit? If so, then what
does Linux show you for the parmline contents?
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Betsie Spann [mailto:betsie.spann@;oracle.com]
Sent
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 08:40:45PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand was heard to remark:
> Linas Vepstas wrote:
>
> Every page of memory has a storage key, which holds a key and a
> fetch-protection bit. If the fetch-protection bit is cleared,
> then anyone can read the page; if the fetch-protection bit is
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 18:06, Marcy Cortes wrote:
> Adam wrote:
> >Here's how: go get the virgin 2.4.19 kernel sources
> >from kernel.org. Go get the s390-may2002, s390-1-may2002, and
> >timer-1-may2002 patches from IBM Developerworks, and apply them in
> >that order. Also get the qeth driver from
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Post, Mark K wrote:
> Linas,
>
> No. Either your storage key matches, or it doesn't. If it matches, you get
> read and write access, if it doesn't match, you get neither. (You _do_ get
> a S0C4 abend.)
>
A better source;-)
http://doclib.ucs.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/bookmgr/book
Hello from Gregg C Levine
No you won't. Laughed at, yes, lynched, no. However, I did look at the
product, for Windows. And I wasn't thrilled by it. But what did happen
to Multics? And when will it be released to the public? However, Scott,
if you want to have something happen to you, I know a nice
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Post, Mark K wrote:
> Linas,
>
> No. Either your storage key matches, or it doesn't. If it matches, you get
> read and write access, if it doesn't match, you get neither. (You _do_ get
> a S0C4 abend.)
>
I am looking at http://www.share.org/proceedings/SH98/data/S2826.PDF
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, McKown, John wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marcy Cortes [mailto:marcy@;WellsFargo.COM]
> > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:06 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions...
> >
> > Suppose another customer had a SuSE su
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 11:13 pm, David Boyes wrote:
> > > b) Same scenario as above, but word-substitute apache->kernel and
> > >mod_trojan->device driver. [...]
>
> And we reinvent the Multics ring structure one more time
>
> dockmaster.af.mil, wherefore art thou?
I'll be lynched for
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:59:57PM +0100, Jochen Rvhrig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:39:05PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Have you tried the Debian packages for mono found here:
> >
> > http://www.debianplanet.org/mono/
>
> They don't provide binaries for Debian/390 and the latest sourc
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:39:05PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Have you tried the Debian packages for mono found here:
>
> http://www.debianplanet.org/mono/
They don't provide binaries for Debian/390 and the latest source-package
is based in mono release 0.15 (Aug 23rd, 2002) which does not yet
The keys don't have to match if the fetch pretection bit is 0. See from
z/900 PofO:
3.3 Storage Key
A storage key is associated with each 4K-byte block of storage that is
available in the configuration. The storage key has the following format:
ACC FRC
Without having seen one of those contracts, I would not be able to comment
on the particulars.
Since the pieces under discussion in this scenario are all GPL, then any
recipient has the right to redistribute it freely. Any attempt to restrict
that right is in itself a violation of the GPL.
Shari
> -Original Message-
> From: Post, Mark K [mailto:mark.post@;eds.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 1:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: CPU Arch Security [was: Re: Probably the first
> published shel l code]
>
>
> Linas,
>
> No. Either your storage key matches, or it doesn't
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 08:28:42PM +0100, Jochen Rvhrig wrote:
> I'm just trying to get the alien-converted rpm's running on a Debian/390
> system and unfortunately I only get a segfault when running mint on my
> sample program ...
Have you tried the Debian packages for mono found here:
http://w
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 08:01:55PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand was heard to
remark:
>> Just use mmap, and use file access rights to protect the data.
>
>How can a library get read-write access to a file, while preventing
>the app from writing to the same file?
Of course you need tw
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:06:01AM -0800, Marcy Cortes wrote:
> Suppose another customer had a SuSE support contract. Could
> that customer email Robert the kernel patch rpm file without
> violating their support contract? That's all he would need to run
> guest LAN on his existing HW/SW.
I thin
Neale,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 01:36:47PM -0700, Ferguson, Neale wrote:
> For those who'd like to play with the C# open-source package "mono",
> the necessary RPMs can be downloaded from "http://go-mono.com/download";.
> I don't think you need the -devel RPMs if you just want to play.
What modifi
Linas,
No. Either your storage key matches, or it doesn't. If it matches, you get
read and write access, if it doesn't match, you get neither. (You _do_ get
a S0C4 abend.)
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linas Vepstas [mailto:linas@;linas.org]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:57
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcy Cortes [mailto:marcy@;WellsFargo.COM]
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions...
>
> Suppose another customer had a SuSE support contract. Could
> that customer email Robert the
Adam wrote:
>Here's how: go get the virgin 2.4.19 kernel sources
>from kernel.org. Go get the s390-may2002, s390-1-may2002, and
>timer-1-may2002 patches from IBM Developerworks, and apply them in
>that order. Also get the qeth driver from there. Build a kernel.
>Build your modules. Copy the qet
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 08:01:55PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand was heard to remark:
> Linas Vepstas wrote:
>
> > But in my storage-key world, I can imagine spearating the strcture
> > from the data, and putting the structure in read-only memory, where the
> > app can see it but not corrupt it, and puttin
I personally would not recommend that someone else run a development kernel
in production, unless they really understand just what that means. The
potential for system problems is very much higher which may (or may not)
offset the added functionality. Before going that route, try it out as
thorou
n Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:10AM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote:
> The only warning I can think of is that you're going to be running a
> "development" kernel. Unless you're planning on being part of the
> development process, providing feedback to the kernel developers, etc., you
> don't want to do t
Werner,
This has been experienced previously. If you're "adding" a new control unit
to an LPAR, you have to manually configure it online to the LPAR before it
can be used. For MVS, etc., this can be done by the operating system, but
you'll probably need to do it from the service console.
Mark P
Hi,
I think that I can understand both views, but I can only say that I
think the concepts needed to exploit the different execution domains
within one process is asking for a new operating system and that I guess
this new operating system might be S/390-specific or the applications
using it wou
Hello all-
I have a couple of general questions that I was wondering about:
1. My linux boxes keep coming up with the network configs being wrong,
mostly the netmask is wrong, and hence the default route doesn't work or
isn't there at all, because the network is unreachable. I have define
Jan Jaeger wrote:
>I am not sure that one would run away from the concept of unix. One can
>easily (in concept anyway) add more spaces to one process, separate spaces
>for code, stack and data for example.
>Similarly, shared libs could reside in their own space, one would need a
>different linkag
Don,
The only warning I can think of is that you're going to be running a
"development" kernel. Unless you're planning on being part of the
development process, providing feedback to the kernel developers, etc., you
don't want to do that. If that _is_ your intent, then go for it.
Mark Post
---
On November 4th, IBM released a draft of a new Redbook. The abstract page
states:
This IBM Redbook describes experiences gained while installing and testing
Oracle9i for Linux on zSeries, such as:
-Setting up the development systems at Oracle for the Linux on zSeries
environment
-Installing the O
Hi, I was wondering if any of you were running a 2.5 kernel. I haven't
tried it yet myself and am about to do so. Any warnings/suggestions would
be appreciated. Thanks, Don
No, just one CEC. I also believe that a POR would do the job, but I fear I won't
get the time for a POR :-(
I'd like to know if this is a consequence of dynamically changing the access to
the devices and OS/390 2.10 or JES3 doesn't really give them free, although
they're offline.
Werner Kuehnel
IM
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:38:16AM -0500, David Boyes wrote:
> > I don't think that Red Hat is new to non-IA32 archs at all. I'm sure
> > I'm getting my years wrong, but they did have an Alpha and Sparc port
> > throughout the late 1990s.
>
> At least until 2000, I believe. I remember talking with
Ouch! That hurts. I'm at a loss. I am fairly sure that a POR of the box will
clear the condition. But that is very extreme and likely to get other people
a bit upset at you . Do you have more than one CEC? Could another CEC
have the device "tied up"?
--
John McKown
Senior Technical Specialist
UICI
> I don't think that Red Hat is new to non-IA32 archs at all. I'm sure
> I'm getting my years wrong, but they did have an Alpha and Sparc port
> throughout the late 1990s.
At least until 2000, I believe. I remember talking with a customer just
after RH discontinued the Sparc port, and the RH pers
Hi John,
just tried it, not even with a RESET CLEAR it works.
Werner
"McKown, John" wrote:
>
> Werner,
> I got something like that on an OS/390 IPL attempt. The same message, and
> the devices in question were "off line" to all other LPARs. I then did a
> "reset clear" on the LPAR that I was atte
Werner,
I got something like that on an OS/390 IPL attempt. The same message, and
the devices in question were "off line" to all other LPARs. I then did a
"reset clear" on the LPAR that I was attempting to IPL, then IPL'ed it
again. This time it worked! It appears that the microcode assumed that th
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 02:45, Alex deVries wrote:
> Jon R. Doyle wrote:
> > I have too, it is my experience RH is new to the multi-platform
> > capability, but they are not new to marketing, they are great at that, ala
> > M$.
> >
>
> I don't think that Red Hat is new to non-IA32 archs at all. I'm
I installed Linux (SLES for S/390) onto 3 3390-3 volumes some months ago and got
it started from disk.
When trying to restart last week I discovered that the 3 volumes were no longer
accessible by the Linux LPAR, sometime the configuration changed. So I changed
the IODF/IOCDS dynamically to allow t
Hello from Gregg C Levine
And you are not. I will accept corrections, but I believe they were the
first ones to create non Intel ports of Linux. That is actively released
ones. Everyone one was, and still is tinkering their way through such.
---
Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
46 matches
Mail list logo
