Smith III, Phil , HPE Data Security Voltage wrote:
John Eells wrote:
OK, not related to the problem for which we took the APARs.
Was the POSIT shared with another class? Weird Things Happen when you do that.
That was my guess, and what led me to suggest they change it. But I don't know.
Still seems like a bug, or at least a doc error, no?
Whether it's a bug or a doc error vs. a feature depends on exactly what
weirdness you saw and whether it's expectedly or unexpectedly weird.
That's a question for Level 2 or RACF-L. But as I understand it, some
of the weird things derive from commands against a class that shares a
POSIT with another being implicitly (and, I am told, intentionally)
driven against both classes. Sometimes the command does not apply to
the second class, and apparent errors ensue.
Much or all of this is documented in the RACF SAG. My simple-minded
approach to life since learning about this not too long ago is to
*never* share a POSIT value.
--
John Eells
IBM Poughkeepsie
ee...@us.ibm.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
