Re: LPC 2021 presentation - Kernel cgroups and namespaces: Can they contribute to FFI claims?


Jochen Kall
 

Hi everyone,

just a quality of life service for those interested, the recording of the talk can be found here:
https://youtu.be/iaK_wcL1ekY?t=12393

Jochen

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: devel@... <devel@...> Im Auftrag von
elana.copperman@...
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. September 2021 11:40
An: Paul Albertella <paul.albertella@...>; devel@...
Betreff: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] LPC 2021 presentation - Kernel
cgroups and namespaces: Can they contribute to FFI claims?

Totally agreed with the problem space, and the proposed path forward.
Paul - until we sort out the final details of "development process" WG
evolution, can we use tomorrow's call for kickstarting this discussion.
A good starting point would be the presentation from last week's LPC on
Kernel cgroups and namespaces: Can they contribute to FFI claims?
https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/11/contributions/1079/
Including some of the questions raised by Bruce and Priyanka in their closing
slide.
Regards
Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: devel@... <devel@...> On Behalf Of Paul
Albertella
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:23 PM
To: devel@...
Subject: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] LPC 2021 presentation - Kernel
cgroups and namespaces: Can they contribute to FFI claims?

Hi Elana,

On 29/09/2021 06:50, elana.copperman@... wrote:
And in a more general sense, what are the criteria for acceptance of
such kernel features as the basis for safety claims such as FFI?

@Paul Albertella <mailto:paul.albertella@...> - I would
hope that your new WG will be helpful to make clear guidelines on such
questions.

Yes, that's very much my intention!

There are really two broad sets of criteria, which can be summarised in the
following two questions:

1) What role does the feature have in achieving a safety goal?
2) What gives us confidence that the feature can fulfil that role?

In my opinion, there's nothing to *prevent* us from using any Linux feature
as the basis for a safety claim, provided that we can:

* Document our answers to these questions (Assertions)
* Provide material to support these answers (Evidence)

The challenge is that we then have to satisfy a safety assessor that these are
valid and sufficient!

One of the issues we face when answering these questions for Linux (and
open source software in general) is that the 'traditional' answers (as
described in safety standards like ISO 26262) are not always well-supported
by either assertions or evidence from open source communities.

However, it's vitally important to recognise that safety standards do allow for
'non-traditional' answers and evidence, provided that we are prepared to
make a reasoned argument to support these.

My goal with the OSEP WG is to explore specific examples of this, to
understand what Linux contributors (or maintainers) and safety system
developers (or integrators) can do to both frame better answers and provide
better evidence.

Regards,

Paul









--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Jochen Kall

--
Dr. rer. nat. Jochen Kall

Funktionale Sicherheit

ITK Engineering GmbH
Im Speyerer Tal 6
76761 Rülzheim

Tel.: +49 7272 7703-546
Fax: +49 7272 7703-100

Mobil:+491734957776

mailto:jochen.kall@... ( jochen.kall@... )

______________________________________________________________

ITK Engineering GmbH | Im Speyerer Tal 6 | 76761 Rülzheim

Tel.: +49 7272 7703-0 | Fax: +49 7272 7703-100

mailto:info@... ( info@... ) | http://www.itk-engineering.de ( http://www.itk-engineering.de/ )

Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairman of the Supervisory Board:

Dr. Rudolf Maier

Geschäftsführung/Executive Board:

Michael Englert (Vorsitzender/Chairman), Bernd Gohlicke

Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: 76761 Rülzheim

Registergericht/Registered Court: Amtsgericht Landau, HRB 32046

USt.-ID-Nr./VAT-ID-No. DE 813165046

Join devel@lists.elisa.tech to automatically receive all group messages.