From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 6F4E7E0095F; Fri, 5 May 2017 06:13:09 -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: * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.214.45 listed in list.dnswl.org] * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [209.85.214.45 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 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 Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com (mail-it0-f45.google.com [209.85.214.45]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D787CE007EE for ; Fri, 5 May 2017 06:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id c15so22866374ith.0 for ; Fri, 05 May 2017 06:13:08 -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=gqMkOWJnydYx97Nv9mESnZw1Ao8h88Cdb+zUiX7ObsU=; b=PlK1gAcsltQuAsWxdyIbZmb0SXOigqUwOdIcYPCQvY5uRfBP7iD5cVuY79AlsL+WXi Kpuh1/uAs/YepzaEY5smkAIfGutoufmWmMAssN2Qb/Qisoz2RWfJb3YHIM1VsxoKCRMm KREBgM4e0hydo0pJ1phPiOZKHFR3Yy3+dr0yCpqIScfHQ167nfw4T50Sts4aSPu9m9Qq Fq6cBLysuG1mpho77a2OnCFr3Cz2bqIDuyWYcQpXu92H+KaqJWgUvh0+OOhd0zFbo8SA FX8ZcrpMXTbao++xg4/5TxH9kayWpn2/yuNHs0Y+LWuRNyXI9AE8odJPFwiY7/DzfrF/ 4a4w== 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=gqMkOWJnydYx97Nv9mESnZw1Ao8h88Cdb+zUiX7ObsU=; b=a1GBUVjS61VN6/PncPKxykD+Gz7Z6a/W9l4L02lPbdRu2V4Kh1BVKl6pZpvthz6CfY LwA+Je2OaQiUlP0YCztEldc/V7b5/kCnFUdHpk4Ix/RJzjwtPQURszdGSmwusNo7fbvK qrF5rtGx9QxPEZsZTwsFHqlXaU10Uc4JeqCULGH4kFeKZFU9aiq+4GVxa1gniKN52PUd qdgDe2RBDHEhu1x77IdM5ho3U/z4Duqa5ahOTcNwCQhI8JU7ypsLVG4nVZUnnM8htsP7 UVcNBhTmHB5TqkORlzGWPVPbFOpL54opa8ToeB7foGFWHgtLk5jUlDq5PRsAhbqkGo0K RuEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5v8ezQBgrRlzaWGgTrv0MWkEe05/HoIIaJLv6N/lQqeS80TsWE UtnaUzgKsJjv//AH X-Received: by 10.36.19.193 with SMTP id 184mr8040139itz.93.1493989987796; Fri, 05 May 2017 06:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8E982.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.233.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 9sm944365itm.12.2017.05.05.06.13.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 May 2017 06:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1493989984.4241.308.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Khem Raj Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 15:13:04 +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 13:13:09 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 08:45 -0400, Khem Raj wrote: > Set > > SECURITY_CFLAGS = "${SECURITY_NO_PIE_CFLAGS}" But that's just a workaround, right? Ideally the build rules of tpm2.0-tools should be fixed to not need that. -- 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.