Re: Fix Security (was: Paging file)

["Leif Svalgaard" <leif@xxxxxxxx>]

From: Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@centerfieldtechnology.com>
> Some MI instructions, even those exposed to XPF (usable in C and RPGLE,
> etc.) will not execute at certain levels of security, unless in system
> state. If a vendor REALLY thought they needed to walk the work control
> block table, they could do it from C, but would need to make the conversion
> Leif talks about. And I believe this is true, even if they write an MI
> program - it still needs the system state.

walking the WCBT certainly will, but there are cases where
the C-API actually works but an MI-program will fail. An example
is MATCXT. The technical reason is that C-API calls a system
state underlying program. The decision to allow this in C and
not in MI makes little sense though.



>
> And Leif, I think I'm kind of getting it. Your responses and those of Ed
> Fishel have been helpful.
>

This is what is so good about this list. We often chew and ruminate
so long on a topic that even hardcore denialists have a chance to
"get it"  :-)  :-)