He did, and he did. In this day and age, there is no excuse for using, e.g., CVTUSER, TCBUSER. IBM has provided safer alternatives.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 10:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: WTO I seem to recall there was another such pointer in the SMF structures and I thought the Nasty Wet Monster Bank used that. But maybe I am mixing things up. Could have been some other bank. These fields were great for local mods and I made extensive use of the CVTUSER field in the 1980s to hold flags, settings and values (even whole tables) used by various exits which were used by multiple MVS installations I supported. I had code (and a change protocol) that could modify these in flight, thus altering the flow of control in exits and so on. The fields that Peter has described (Thank you Peter) are for vendors. If, in time passed, any Vendor made use of the CVTUSER field he could be sure he would upset many customers. Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw | Security Lead | RSM Partners Ltd Web: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1PcvL1Uj14WnRMSgaWaskipon2USjMMQaROSkbJeDAeO2qNbi4zhtM2ymJWBsyvaIasWFfR6O4p-SkTmsAnOJxUo7IUtYUxDBMqGIj7gFvRs8CboiihekRVUrixUFCIOqbsVjT8OUning-EXL9L7SLXybRn9EFK9WoDdafDndUUCw6mQbplBu87g6dLaGlVRRHdhOF4385YLtkmTYTL5WQPGANeNLGsTMYGByORGnSp66rwQziiEkuLgDm1Z2XW7Y6jV3Vm2K9kQCfPxjXPhV0kK8rOAOLnDuGk6HUvQyHV2il8gr9ne4rkdrQoebjIFkqJeeeWJ2KWzWjUZJe0iqaqmb41Ur55Qn9PmUqa970A28T8VQyVbdHYd9RcahZ-y2X5OKu2cB6nQQiW_beoPszln1UpNmGDsCUql0cuWdHBUcxKN9TP7j9WFMO-aEpmsz/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rsmpartners.com ‘Dance like no one is watching. Encrypt like everyone is.’ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Rupert Reynolds Sent: 30 November 2019 16:40 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] WTO ahem! I meant to say CVTUSER, a very different field from CVTUSR :-) On Sat, 30 Nov 2019, 15:17 Rupert Reynolds, <[email protected]> wrote: > Whatever happened to CVTUSR? Back in the 1990s we used to have (from > memory) a started task that came up briefly during IPL and it > allocated storage (I forget what key, but read only in the general > case) for a vector table, pointed CVTUSR at that, and then it stopped itself. > > So if I was (say) at Nasty Wet Monster Bank, it would point CVTUSR at > the NMVT, which we could use for anything within reason. > > Ruz > > On Sat, 30 Nov 2019, 13:56 Peter Relson, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Lennie wrote: >> <snip> >> Is this intended to be undocumented? >> Is there a published list of the existing assignments of those slots? >> </snip> >> >> To the first: it is documented. To the extent appropriate, that being >> commentary in the data area book and showing the fields as "PI". >> To the second: no. >> >> It is up to each ISV whether they want to make known what slot they >> are using (and up to them to document whatever they feel appropriate >> about such use). >> >> Peter Relson >> z/OS Core Technology Design >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO >> IBM-MAIN >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
