From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 04AB9E00961; Fri, 5 May 2017 03:41:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [209.85.223.180 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.223.180 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E893E007EE for ; Fri, 5 May 2017 03:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-f180.google.com with SMTP id f102so2893617ioi.2 for ; Fri, 05 May 2017 03:41:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ymXJ/Op7aZTY778AZsJOIJLHLcTun0VO74yiy8yudH4=; b=otU62XRIXOSzonel2gZ3XRyfmTBuKU8lmFBoEzGNmTpneGX7XnXKJ+TgE1zSVvXECA DnvoFh4joTjxgDoyz8IJZPJn239mSt/dGhrJB/qMQIvxhqfRZKraBSF7BRpn2ZUP2+FH pWc2BzTAGQnYxZTM7UGviamFoTE/R9hBMvCASVxjeV0KKVMFEX3lJ4Sw8OpfJWRPNpC6 6ZZgnZuqtlvH5dveor/8hbfIGUACVV1LYdMTMDOcpC3tJ51OlQbAoK/N6UCFKdEsXjgm DPZWq4cCGdP+aN47+OLMs+fL2nrJqxt/cvBVcgz7b0rdQ3NBNi5ApWHF44owx3Qc+q35 t9YA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ymXJ/Op7aZTY778AZsJOIJLHLcTun0VO74yiy8yudH4=; b=UIzn98+ysJE8wamGeoObcvpvQ7i3xkXAR7FVeOtoYCItayvdY4GqymezX9ReaqdwV9 AuSgrR6+K7Me8r7g2+QJyTcLM9ZIMcrugA0Tf+7tc7QxYgoJJQP1996t3M4WjmXPQhvJ A5IY8vAdxcC4ct8h2P21ujz2tQjBuE6g1UfC4gu8SFR/OGDeT4SOUsITeRKLPgFpGk10 bYiCrJbyRO3TGh1zk/vIo0FUWq1lglAvrDmD1zM6+w/OifQdWNg9Pzb87+wrwy+1DMus aJiQ1JY2tJNHctb8HnBP6+vOG81yTHzsq1MWPBi6lN8sZCAk6nLPWzwmlBvq3BxEKqCW Na8w== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4/f4/jl0OS7JKgiyxWx3Uc1atbIdKL8fRKSvCP5VCTUMuRnWrC sI8jspa25yg1zH5Uw2I= X-Received: by 10.107.184.9 with SMTP id i9mr16002413iof.153.1493980885091; Fri, 05 May 2017 03:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8E982.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.233.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f37sm9674741ioi.17.2017.05.05.03.41.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 May 2017 03:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1493980881.4241.305.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Dominig Ar Foll Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 12:41:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: Enabling tpm from meta-security for AGL X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 10:41:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 12:12 +0200, Dominig Ar Foll wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying to enable tpm on an Intel target using yocto (morty) from > meta-security > > When I activate the tpm-tools-2.0 feature in my configuration, I have > a compilation error (see log bellow) > Search for line: > | /usr/src/debug/glibc/2.24-r0/git/csu/../sysdeps/x86_64/start.S:104: > undefined reference to `main' g++ ends up trying to link an executable instead of a shared objection. If I remember correctly, -fstack-protector-strong in CFLAGS causes that. The order of parameters must be ${CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS). I've tried with meta-security master and it doesn't happen there, so perhaps it was already fixed. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.