A REFR program's page can be stolen (without having to save it first) by
the RSM if it has a higher UIC than other pages. If it then hits a page
fault, the ASM reloads the missing page from the paging dataset so the
program can continue executing. AFAIK It reloads only stolen pages, not
the whole m
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:53:23 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote:
>
>> Name-token services does something related. I understand it performs
>> no costly locking during searches, but tests a flag after a search to
>> detect that the data structure has been modified in-progress, and
>> re-drive the search, wi
On 12 June 2017 at 12:35, Paul Gilmartin <
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Name-token services does something related. I understand it performs
> no costly locking during searches, but tests a flag after a search to
> detect that the data structure has been modified in-pr
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:44:02 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:31:28 -0400 Randy Hudson wrote:
>
>:>Saving a few bytes is sneered at as false economy, now. It wasn't, then.
>
Alas, code designed according to that criterion remains in use today (if it
weren't, REFRPROT could be
It could be practical when writing high-performance code to modify a RENT
module if it is not in key 0 (or use a PC to make the modification if in key
0). An example would be if an extensive chain of indirect pointers (or the
NAME/TOKEN service), is used to locate life of IPL memory allocated
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 20:52:10 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote:
>Question: Wasn't REFR for a program where, say a double-bit
>parity error could occur, and it would then get loaded to a new page?
I can't comment on the double-bit parity error, but I think that someone
(Peter, Jim?) mentioned earlier
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 02:24:30 +, Jesse 1 Robinson
wrote:
>I got tired of guessing. I wrote a little program that saves registers into
>itself via STM. I linked it with AC(1) and RENT. Did not specify >either REUS
>or REFR. The result according to StarTool is
>-- ATTRIBUTES - APF
>RE
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 07:27:15 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
REFRPROT extends this to programs that are not loaded from an
APF authorized library.
Actually, REFRPROT extends this to programs that are bound with the REFR
option regardless of module authorization or library aut
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>But if you lie to zOS and assert that a non-reentrant program is reentrant,
>zOS will not stop you from walking off the roof.
Indeed. You will get burned badly. I once coded a SMF exit which modified
itself in a macro's MF=L instead of modified that marco's copy in a GET
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:31:28 -0400 Randy Hudson wrote:
:>In article <2376347398828975.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu> you
write:
:>
:>> Point taken. But it's not clear why the designers chose to allow a program
:>> to be both modifyable and reloadable. This leads to dreadful
unpredict
On
Behalf Of Clark Morris
:>Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 5:15 PM
:>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
:>Subject: (External):Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
:>
:>[Default] On 11 Jun 2017 13:39:47 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Paul Gilmartin) w
In article <2376347398828975.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu> you write:
> Point taken. But it's not clear why the designers chose to allow a program
> to be both modifyable and reloadable. This leads to dreadful
> unpredictability:
> Behavior may differ depending on whether the program
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Clark Morris
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 5:15 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
[Default] On 11 Jun 2017 13:39:47 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
000
Another question: Wasn't REFR for SVC type 3/4 modules so that they could be
refreshed in the transient area following preemption without fear that they may
have been modified prior to being preempted?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 11, 2017, at 20:52, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
> Question: Was
Another question: Wasn't REFR for SVC type 3/4 modules so that they could be
refreshed in the transient area following preemption without fear that they may
have been modified prior to being preempted?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 11, 2017, at 20:52, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
>> On 06/11/201
On 06/11/2017 05:33 PM, Walt Farrell wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:40:49 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In the Program Management UG and Ref, I see:
RENT
... A reenterable module is ordinarily expected not to modify
its own code. In some cases, MVS protects the reentrant module's
vir
[Default] On 11 Jun 2017 13:39:47 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Paul Gilmartin) wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:13:17 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>
>>A refreshable program cannot modify itself (or if it can, it would be a
>>very interesting and perh
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:40:49 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>In the Program Management UG and Ref, I see:
>RENT
>... A reenterable module is ordinarily expected not to modify
>its own code. In some cases, MVS protects the reentrant module's
>virtual storage so that it cannot be modified
RENT means only one copy of a module needs to be loaded for a job.
REFR means the module doesn't need to be paged out.
All else is implications and assumptions. Note that neither of the above
strictly require a non-modifiable module. The idea is that the results are
always the same regardless of
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:13:17 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>A refreshable program cannot modify itself (or if it can, it would be a
>very interesting and perhaps self-limiting testcase).
>
I believe that if a program is marked REFR but loaded from a
non-authorized library and REFRPROT is not in effe
A refreshable program cannot modify itself (or if it can, it would be a
very interesting and perhaps self-limiting testcase). A reentrant program
can, if written carefully, modify itself, although it is rarely a good
idea.
LPA modules are generally, in effect, refreshable.
As to "why", think ab
They are not technically the same.
A REFR program can be reloaded at any time. Therefore it cannot self modify as
it cannot know if it has been reloaded. But if it uses common/global areas
without serialization it is not reentrant.
A RENT program is one that can be executed concurrently by multip
UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of CM Poncelet
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 7:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
Not AFAIK. In theory, a RENT program may modify one of its sections provided
that this section is preceded by an ENQ, then modified, then resto
istserv.ua.edu>
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Date: 06/10/2017 09:55 PM
> Subject: Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 07:27:15 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>
> >>REFRPROT extends this to programs that are
he same
> thing, but not quite.
>
> Granted, modifying program storage is a bad idea -- in any event.
>
> Charles
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Saturday,
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:15:11 -0500, Walt Farrell wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:41:16 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>
>>A refreshable program may modify itself, right? REFR does not say "I don't
>>modify myself" it says "you can reload me if you want." Almost >the same
>>thing, but not quite.
>
>T
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:41:16 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>A refreshable program may modify itself, right? REFR does not say "I don't
>modify myself" it says "you can reload me if you want." Almost >the same
>thing, but not quite.
The key, I think, is that the system may reload the program at _
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:41:16 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>A refreshable program may modify itself, right? REFR does not say "I don't
>modify myself" it says "you can reload me if you want." Almost the same thing,
>but not quite.
>
Point taken. But it's not clear why the designers chose to allo
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 7:54 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 07:27:15 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>>REFRPROT extends this
Wow a seal team 6 member ...
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:54 AM Paul Gilmartin <
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 07:27:15 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>
> >>REFRPROT extends this to programs that are not loaded from an
> >>APF authorized library.
> >
> >Ac
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 07:27:15 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>>REFRPROT extends this to programs that are not loaded from an
>>APF authorized library.
>
>Actually, REFRPROT extends this to programs that are bound with the REFR
>option regardless of module authorization or library authorization.
>And
>REFRPROT extends this to programs that are not loaded from an
>APF authorized library.
Actually, REFRPROT extends this to programs that are bound with the REFR
option regardless of module authorization or library authorization.
And it goes further because it page-protects, which would cause the
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>
> One of my very first oh dark thirty wake up calls. I had tested thoroughly
> using a public test library. All good. Copied the module carefully to the
> production counterpart. Went home. Boom.
>
> The lessons you learn earliest are th
1:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
Yup, I'm sure you are right. Lying to the binder didn't (obviously) matter when
the program object was in a non-APF-authorized library, but it did matter when
it was in an authorized library for t
09, 2017 1:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
I think you need RENT on your PL/1 compile because otherwise there is no
guaranteed the generated code will be re-entrant.
General rule is if RENT on bind/LinkedIn then you must have RENT on high level
langua
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:10:28 -0400, Don Poitras wrote:
>I don't see what 0C4 is telling you vis-a-vis APF authorization. I think it's
>more likely that you've told the binder that the program is RENT and it's
>not. If you have REFRPROT set in your PROGxx parmlib member, then it's going
>to get load
.
>
> Regards,
> Leo
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Way, Richard
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 4:24 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
&g
,
Leo
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Way, Richard
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 4:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
Problem solved, per the suggestions below!!
In partic
Oh duh - re-reading Don's note and this isn't even a puzzle any more.
Thanks again, Don and others.
Rich Way
-Original Message-
From: Way, Richard
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 1:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: RE: APF authorization and AC(00)
Problem solve
still a bit of a puzzle.
>
> But removing RENT from the bind step gets me past this.
>
> Thanks again
>
> Rich Wa
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Way, Richard
> Sent: Friday, Ju
that didn't - and I confirmed that by revoking and reinstating APF auth
on the library.
Rich Way
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Leonardo Vaz
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 1:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subje
rmed that by revoking and reinstating APF auth
on the library.
Rich Way
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Leonardo Vaz
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 1:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
uld cause a problem...
Rich Way
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Leonardo Vaz
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
As far as I understand, AC=0 wou
I don't see what 0C4 is telling you vis-a-vis APF authorization. I think it's
more likely that you've told the binder that the program is RENT and it's
not. If you have REFRPROT set in your PROGxx parmlib member, then it's going
to get loaded into read-only storage and when it tries to modify itsel
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Leonardo Vaz
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: APF authorization and AC(00)
As far as I understand, AC=0 would only prevent authorization of the JSCB if it
is the program
As far as I understand, AC=0 would only prevent authorization of the JSCB if it
is the program being attached as a jobstep task, if this program is being
called by an already-existing authorized task, it would run authorized.
The question is: How is control passed to program ZPXPLIA?
Regards,
L
46 matches
Mail list logo
