Today's meeting question
Paoloni, Gabriele <gabriele.paoloni@...>
Hi Alessandro
Unfortunately I didn’t have time to address your question: -- (maybe miss the question ) -- Can we mix the MANTAINERS files with Makefile dependency tree ? This will make a sort of "double-check" and can add more informations.
I think it is an idea we can expand on…if you want to elaborate a proposal for a better partitioning pls feel free.
Thanks again Gab
--------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
|
|
Biasci Alessandro
Hi Gabriele,
sorry for the delay but last week was quite intensive…
I don’t have a concrete proposal, I’m just asking if you consider to “double-check” what MANTAINERS file reports with something else in order to be sure that your analysis is correct.
Makefile will reflect the “compiled code” in your machine so, information inside Makefile are correct because it will produce your binary. I’m not sure if we can extract useful information from that.
Best Regards, Alessandro.
From: Paoloni, Gabriele [mailto:gabriele.paoloni@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:19 PM To: Biasci Alessandro <a.biasci@...> Cc: safety-architecture@...; Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...> Subject: Today's meeting question
Hi Alessandro
Unfortunately I didn’t have time to address your question: -- (maybe miss the question ) -- Can we mix the MANTAINERS files with Makefile dependency tree ? This will make a sort of "double-check" and can add more informations.
I think it is an idea we can expand on…if you want to elaborate a proposal for a better partitioning pls feel free.
Thanks again Gab
--------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
|
|
Paoloni, Gabriele <gabriele.paoloni@...>
Hi Alessandro
Ok so, if I understand correctly the problem here is to make sure that the files and the functions that we base our analysis on are the right ones for a specific Kernel build (i.e. .config), is it correct? I think that what you propose has been already addressed in the SIL2LinuxMP project by the so called “code minimization technology” (see [1]); this would make sure that we work on the
minimal
Maybe if we go straight for [2], [1] does not provide any benefit…I am not sure.
Many Thanks Gab
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/trace/tracepoints.html
From: safety-architecture@... <safety-architecture@...>
On Behalf Of Biasci Alessandro via lists.elisa.tech
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:40 AM To: Paoloni, Gabriele <gabriele.paoloni@...> Cc: safety-architecture@...; Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...> Subject: Re: [ELISA Safety Architecture WG] Today's meeting question
Hi Gabriele,
sorry for the delay but last week was quite intensive…
I don’t have a concrete proposal, I’m just asking if you consider to “double-check” what MANTAINERS file reports with something else in order to be sure that your analysis is correct.
Makefile will reflect the “compiled code” in your machine so, information inside Makefile are correct because it will produce your binary. I’m not sure if we can extract useful information from that.
Best Regards, Alessandro.
From: Paoloni, Gabriele [mailto:gabriele.paoloni@...]
Hi Alessandro
Unfortunately I didn’t have time to address your question: -- (maybe miss the question ) -- Can we mix the MANTAINERS files with Makefile dependency tree ? This will make a sort of "double-check" and can add more informations.
I think it is an idea we can expand on…if you want to elaborate a proposal for a better partitioning pls feel free.
Thanks again Gab
--------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for --------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
|
|
Biasci Alessandro
Hi Gabriele,
thanks for the reply. I don’t know about [1] but it’s on the same line of my suggestion. Are we planning to reuse in our analysis (maybe in further step) ?
B.R. Alessandro
From: safety-architecture@... [mailto:safety-architecture@...]
On Behalf Of Paoloni, Gabriele
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 5:01 PM To: Biasci Alessandro <a.biasci@...> Cc: safety-architecture@...; Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...> Subject: Re: [ELISA Safety Architecture WG] Today's meeting question
Hi Alessandro
Ok so, if I understand correctly the problem here is to make sure that the files and the functions that we base our analysis on are the right ones for a specific Kernel build (i.e. .config), is it correct? I think that what you propose has been already addressed in the SIL2LinuxMP project by the so called “code minimization technology” (see [1]); this would make sure that we work on the minimal
Maybe if we go straight for [2], [1] does not provide any benefit…I am not sure.
Many Thanks Gab
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/trace/tracepoints.html
From:
safety-architecture@... <safety-architecture@...>
On Behalf Of Biasci Alessandro via lists.elisa.tech
Hi Gabriele,
sorry for the delay but last week was quite intensive…
I don’t have a concrete proposal, I’m just asking if you consider to “double-check” what MANTAINERS file reports with something else in order to be sure that your analysis is correct.
Makefile will reflect the “compiled code” in your machine so, information inside Makefile are correct because it will produce your binary. I’m not sure if we can extract useful information from that.
Best Regards, Alessandro.
From: Paoloni, Gabriele [mailto:gabriele.paoloni@...]
Hi Alessandro
Unfortunately I didn’t have time to address your question: -- (maybe miss the question ) -- Can we mix the MANTAINERS files with Makefile dependency tree ? This will make a sort of "double-check" and can add more informations.
I think it is an idea we can expand on…if you want to elaborate a proposal for a better partitioning pls feel free.
Thanks again Gab
--------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for --------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
|
|
Paoloni, Gabriele <gabriele.paoloni@...>
Hi Alessandro
To be honest I am quite limited with my BW so right now I am giving priority to the evaluation of the suitability of the proposed architectural model WRT the safety analyses. If you want to try playing with it in the meantime pls go ahead; it is a useful tool anyway.
Thanks Gab
From: Biasci Alessandro <a.biasci@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 2:20 PM To: Paoloni, Gabriele <gabriele.paoloni@...> Cc: safety-architecture@...; Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...> Subject: RE: [ELISA Safety Architecture WG] Today's meeting question
Hi Gabriele,
thanks for the reply. I don’t know about [1] but it’s on the same line of my suggestion. Are we planning to reuse in our analysis (maybe in further step) ?
B.R. Alessandro
From:
safety-architecture@... [mailto:safety-architecture@...]
On Behalf Of Paoloni, Gabriele
Hi Alessandro
Ok so, if I understand correctly the problem here is to make sure that the files and the functions that we base our analysis on are the right ones for a specific Kernel build (i.e. .config), is it correct? I think that what you propose has been already addressed in the SIL2LinuxMP project by the so called “code minimization technology” (see [1]); this would make sure that we work on the minimal
Maybe if we go straight for [2], [1] does not provide any benefit…I am not sure.
Many Thanks Gab
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/trace/tracepoints.html
From:
safety-architecture@... <safety-architecture@...>
On Behalf Of Biasci Alessandro via lists.elisa.tech
Hi Gabriele,
sorry for the delay but last week was quite intensive…
I don’t have a concrete proposal, I’m just asking if you consider to “double-check” what MANTAINERS file reports with something else in order to be sure that your analysis is correct.
Makefile will reflect the “compiled code” in your machine so, information inside Makefile are correct because it will produce your binary. I’m not sure if we can extract useful information from that.
Best Regards, Alessandro.
From: Paoloni, Gabriele [mailto:gabriele.paoloni@...]
Hi Alessandro
Unfortunately I didn’t have time to address your question: -- (maybe miss the question ) -- Can we mix the MANTAINERS files with Makefile dependency tree ? This will make a sort of "double-check" and can add more informations.
I think it is an idea we can expand on…if you want to elaborate a proposal for a better partitioning pls feel free.
Thanks again Gab
--------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for --------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for --------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
|
|