Thanks, Jochen.  This is excellent.
We should continue this discussion, as proposed in the parallel thread.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jochen Kall <Jochen.Kall@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 1:00 PM
To: Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...>; Paul Albertella <paul.albertella@...>; devel@...
Subject: AW: [ELISA Technical Community] LPC 2021 presentation - Kernel cgroups and namespaces: Can they contribute to FFI claims?

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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>