This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: email-based regression search server
- From: Bernd Jendrissek <berndj at prism dot co dot za>
- To: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:54:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: email-based regression search server
- References: <20030205235438.GC16741@disaster.jaj.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 06:54:38PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:57:23PM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote:
[...]
> just a compiler, and I didn't preserve the drivers. I can start doing
> so, but I've got 6GB of cc1* already. And the driver wouldn't be enough;
6GB! I wouldn't have expected that...
> > Could your setup be modified to accept a test case plus a script to run
> > it? That script, like the one used by my regression search tools, could
> > return 1 meaning to search later dates or 0 meaning to search earlier
> > dates.
>
> For the #1 script, certainly. For the #2 script, no way in hell. :-)
>
> I realize it would be cool, but the thought of allowing anybody in the
> world to email an arbitrary script to my machine and have it automatically
> executed, just doesn't appeal to me.
It'd be doubly arbitrary code you'd be letting anyone run: presumably, GCC
*mostly* works. IOW a 7eeT Xp10it could be *compiled*, even if a chroot'ed
environment were made "safe".
> Yes, I know I'm trying to keep the address nonpublished; someday it'll
> leak out. I know that I can make the procmail recipe check for a list
> of valid users; email can be forged. I can probably set up some kind of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
pgp/gpg helps here. I once had a script for myself when I'm out of the
office to do just this sort of thing: execute arbitrary scripts, but only
if someone trusted (should have been only I but it turned out anyone in my
keyring would also match - recipe disabled now) wrote it. Mail me
privately if you want it. (It even kinda worked.)
> chroot'd environment, but it would still bother me. Doing this would,
> eventually, not be different than simply giving out universal shell access.
... shell access with a development environment. :(
Bernd Jendrissek
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE+QhSX/FmLrNfLpjMRAiY/AJ9lgEBsm0ACZKq0ISVSNs5HGVbVzwCfTIz6
bwRjvNOBjJ6qD/zPfnrp6ts=
=ulQa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----