GCC maintainer account

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:

    Andrew> Chris Faylor wrote:

    >> I've set this account up but this could possibly be
    >> retroactively vetoed by the other overseers if they see this as
    >> a security risk.

    Andrew> If I've the right of veto then I'd like to veto this move.
    Andrew> It is a serious security risk :-( It scares the crap out
    Andrew> of me.

Until now, we've had a very hard time managing cron jobs, etc.,
because people had to set up these jobs out of their own accounts
(which most of the GCC SC did not have) and there was no way to see
what jobs other people had running, etc.

Now we have an account that only the GCC SC can use.  That means an
account with about 15 authorized uers -- some of whom already have
accounts on the machine.  I think that's pretty reasonable, given that
this is a GNU Project, and these people are the maintainers for this
part of the GNU Project.

If that's not acceptable to Red Hat, I fully understand.  There is no
doubt that this account increases the risk of compromise of Red Hat
proprietary information and the integrity of the machine.  

It's fine if some of the cronjobs run somewhere else.  But, we really
do need direct access to the machine.  For example, we have to be able
to manipulate the FTP site as well, and, sometimes, perform direct
surgery on the CVS repository.

If that risk isn't acceptable to Red Hat, that's perfectly
understandable.  In that case, though, we should probably move the GCC
repository to a machine that doesn't have the same risk profile.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com