[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       racf-l
Subject:    Re: IRRXUTIL and R_Admin
From:       scott Ford <idflist1 () GMAIL ! COM>
Date:       2020-02-06 19:36:25
Message-ID: CA+K=n14DOfQDE-G8Je936yVzbF1t6TLRZoX0aHGL2bxD2h51uA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Bruce,

A Hugh thank you. This helps me so much. I am able now to intelligently
look at the code written and determine if we need to change it or permit
this design. Hayim was kind enough to send Share presentations showing the
RACROUTE. I can read the manuals but sometimes with my ADHD concepts don't
register right away. So to see the code what it is doing with the
explanation helps a lot for me.

Scott

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:38 AM Steve Horein <steve.horein@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for an excellent explanation!
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:41 AM Bruce Wells <brwells@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > Circling back to your (Steve's) question, yes, that is expected.  The
> > IRR.LISTUSER authority check is performed as part of LISTUSER command
> > authority checking (see the CLR, as mentioned above), and is just one of
> > many ways by which a user may be authorized to list user information
> > (OWNER, SPECIAL, group-SPECIAL, etc).  The one caveat is that I would
> only
> > expect the 0s return code if at least one piece of information was
> > returned.  For example, if the requester had FIELD access to some
> non-BASE
> > segment, that could have been returned minus the base segment
> information.
> >  However, if there isn't a single field returned, I would expect a
> failing
> > return code.
> > </snip>
> >
>
> Man you're good!
> The NetView autotask in question did have OMVS FIELD access, so only OMVS
> segment information was returned!
>
> Thanks again for your time, experience, and patience!
>
-- 
Scott Ford
IDMWORKS
z/OS Development
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]