Repository navigation
Define the FFI approach - #3139
Conversation
github-project-automation
Bot
added this to
TLC - Technical Lead Circle and S-CORE Roadmap
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
| The specific Assumptions of Use relevant only for the users of a specific module are documented in the module's safety manual. | ||
| That means that the platform safety manual always has to be read together with all its modules safety manuals. | ||
|
|
||
| A platform module may contain both ASIL-relevant and QM components. The |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should also define what that means for the verification of the component. What is the difference between asil relevant components and qm components in respect to our safety process
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good overview here, what is required for QM and for ASIL
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-3139/platform_management_plan/software_verification.html#id1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added a reference to ASIL and QM Verification methods
| The specific Assumptions of Use relevant only for the users of a specific module are documented in the module's safety manual. | ||
| That means that the platform safety manual always has to be read together with all its modules safety manuals. | ||
|
|
||
| A platform module may contain both ASIL-relevant and QM components. The |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good overview here, what is required for QM and for ASIL
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-3139/platform_management_plan/software_verification.html#id1
| integrated into a target hardware which includes safety mechanisms which cover hardware related errors. | ||
|
|
||
| The platform allows ASIL and QM components to coexist within the same module. | ||
| Where components executing in an ASIL context depend on functionality that has |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As Assumed here, https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-3139/platform_management_plan/software_verification.html#id1
there is already a requirement, if the concept requires components used as part of safety context, is must be ASIL, can directly derived from that stakeholder requirement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is not exactly a new requirement but an attempt to clarify how to apply that requirement in the context of a module that may contain components with different ASIL levels all while maintaining freedom from interference
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, then it is more a safety concept to apply FFI on modules, which are QM, but also to be used from safety relevant component. The Safety Concept means, that the part for interacting with QM part shall be developed according to the required ASIL and run in the same context, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes that was my intention, do you think the current update convey that or do you have a specific recommendation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
RC would be to explicetely mention, that it is a safety concept, and then explain it in a short as to split component in QM part and additional Safety Part, which allocates the safety requirements as you mentioned
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated to more clearly reflect the argument made
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this the only change within score repository? Please also link to changes in other repositories if planned any?
| safety lifecycle and shall be developed, verified, and released according to | ||
| the corresponding ASIL process. Components that are not intended to execute | ||
| within an ASIL context may remain QM, provided that freedom from interference | ||
| with the safety context is justified in the respective module safety manual. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would have said FFI has nothing to do with the module safety manual. But you can refer to the platform AoU in https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/requirements/platform_assumptions/index.html#aou_req__platform__process_isolation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you're right perhaps the feature DFA is more appropriate justification for FFI.
https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description//main/process_areas/safety_analysis/safety_analysis_workproducts.html#wp__feature_dfa
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Update speaks of a "is justified in respective feature DFA". I think it is not clear which feature DFA this is. I would propose to write instead "is justified in the feature DFAs of the ASIL rated features using the QM component"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
removed the sentence as suggested below
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inline comments and need to get rid of the "lifecycle" changes which are not relevant here.
|
Documentation preview for this pull request is available at: |
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The removal of docs/modules/lifecycle/index.rst done in #3123 shall not be reverted by this PR.
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my comments resolved
| Where components executing in an ASIL context may utilize functionality that has | ||
| no direct safety purpose, freedom from interference shall be ensured between | ||
| the safety-relevant and non-safety-relevant components. This will require | ||
| All the component's functional requirements will be promoted to ASIL level to ensure |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
typo, all, no new sentence
The PR defines our approach to handling modules that may contain components that are executed from within safe context in order to maintain FFI
#1122