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

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEL CORPORATION ITALIA S.p.A. con unico socio
Sede: Milanofiori Palazzo E 4
CAP 20094 Assago (MI)
Capitale Sociale Euro 104.000,00 interamente versato
Partita I.V.A. e Codice Fiscale  04236760155
Repertorio Economico Amministrativo n. 997124
Registro delle Imprese di Milano nr. 183983/5281/33
Soggetta ad attivita' di direzione e coordinamento di
INTEL CORPORATION, USA

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEL CORPORATION ITALIA S.p.A. con unico socio
Sede: Milanofiori Palazzo E 4
CAP 20094 Assago (MI)
Capitale Sociale Euro 104.000,00 interamente versato
Partita I.V.A. e Codice Fiscale  04236760155
Repertorio Economico Amministrativo n. 997124
Registro delle Imprese di Milano nr. 183983/5281/33
Soggetta ad attivita' di direzione e coordinamento di
INTEL CORPORATION, USA

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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
code as selected by the target .config.
Another option would be to use tracepoints ([2]) in the functions that we reckon to be those connecting different subsystems/drivers. This would allow to build sequence diagrams at runtime and
verify the correctness of the ones we depicted in the architecture representation.

 

Maybe if we go straight for [2], [1] does not provide any benefit…I am not sure.

As next step I am putting together a safety analysis of ioctl() based on this architectural representation to see if this level of detail is meaningful and useful to the safety purpose. Once we have
verified this we can indeed make improvements to the process of architectural definition.

 

Many Thanks

Gab

 

 

[1] https://docs.huihoo.com/automotivelinux/summit/2016/Code-Minimization-Technology-for-SIL2LinuxMP-Qualifying-Linux-for-Functional-Safety.pdf

[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@...]
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

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEL CORPORATION ITALIA S.p.A. con unico socio
Sede: Milanofiori Palazzo E 4
CAP 20094 Assago (MI)
Capitale Sociale Euro 104.000,00 interamente versato
Partita I.V.A. e Codice Fiscale  04236760155
Repertorio Economico Amministrativo n. 997124
Registro delle Imprese di Milano nr. 183983/5281/33
Soggetta ad attivita' di direzione e coordinamento di
INTEL CORPORATION, USA

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEL CORPORATION ITALIA S.p.A. con unico socio
Sede: Milanofiori Palazzo E 4
CAP 20094 Assago (MI)
Capitale Sociale Euro 104.000,00 interamente versato
Partita I.V.A. e Codice Fiscale  04236760155
Repertorio Economico Amministrativo n. 997124
Registro delle Imprese di Milano nr. 183983/5281/33
Soggetta ad attivita' di direzione e coordinamento di
INTEL CORPORATION, USA

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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
code as selected by the target .config.
Another option would be to use tracepoints ([2]) in the functions that we reckon to be those connecting different subsystems/drivers. This would allow to build sequence diagrams at runtime and
verify the correctness of the ones we depicted in the architecture representation.

 

Maybe if we go straight for [2], [1] does not provide any benefit…I am not sure.

As next step I am putting together a safety analysis of ioctl() based on this architectural representation to see if this level of detail is meaningful and useful to the safety purpose. Once we have
verified this we can indeed make improvements to the process of architectural definition.

 

Many Thanks

Gab

 

 

[1] https://docs.huihoo.com/automotivelinux/summit/2016/Code-Minimization-Technology-for-SIL2LinuxMP-Qualifying-Linux-for-Functional-Safety.pdf

[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@...]
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

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEL CORPORATION ITALIA S.p.A. con unico socio
Sede: Milanofiori Palazzo E 4
CAP 20094 Assago (MI)
Capitale Sociale Euro 104.000,00 interamente versato
Partita I.V.A. e Codice Fiscale  04236760155
Repertorio Economico Amministrativo n. 997124
Registro delle Imprese di Milano nr. 183983/5281/33
Soggetta ad attivita' di direzione e coordinamento di
INTEL CORPORATION, USA

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEL CORPORATION ITALIA S.p.A. con unico socio
Sede: Milanofiori Palazzo E 4
CAP 20094 Assago (MI)
Capitale Sociale Euro 104.000,00 interamente versato
Partita I.V.A. e Codice Fiscale  04236760155
Repertorio Economico Amministrativo n. 997124
Registro delle Imprese di Milano nr. 183983/5281/33
Soggetta ad attivita' di direzione e coordinamento di
INTEL CORPORATION, USA

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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.
Once we have a consensus on it and on the right level of detail we can indeed evaluate tools that would be useful to build architectural models and to verify them.

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
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
code as selected by the target .config.
Another option would be to use tracepoints ([2]) in the functions that we reckon to be those connecting different subsystems/drivers. This would allow to build sequence diagrams at runtime and
verify the correctness of the ones we depicted in the architecture representation.

 

Maybe if we go straight for [2], [1] does not provide any benefit…I am not sure.

As next step I am putting together a safety analysis of ioctl() based on this architectural representation to see if this level of detail is meaningful and useful to the safety purpose. Once we have
verified this we can indeed make improvements to the process of architectural definition.

 

Many Thanks

Gab

 

 

[1] https://docs.huihoo.com/automotivelinux/summit/2016/Code-Minimization-Technology-for-SIL2LinuxMP-Qualifying-Linux-for-Functional-Safety.pdf

[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@...]
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

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEL CORPORATION ITALIA S.p.A. con unico socio
Sede: Milanofiori Palazzo E 4
CAP 20094 Assago (MI)
Capitale Sociale Euro 104.000,00 interamente versato
Partita I.V.A. e Codice Fiscale  04236760155
Repertorio Economico Amministrativo n. 997124
Registro delle Imprese di Milano nr. 183983/5281/33
Soggetta ad attivita' di direzione e coordinamento di
INTEL CORPORATION, USA

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEL CORPORATION ITALIA S.p.A. con unico socio
Sede: Milanofiori Palazzo E 4
CAP 20094 Assago (MI)
Capitale Sociale Euro 104.000,00 interamente versato
Partita I.V.A. e Codice Fiscale  04236760155
Repertorio Economico Amministrativo n. 997124
Registro delle Imprese di Milano nr. 183983/5281/33
Soggetta ad attivita' di direzione e coordinamento di
INTEL CORPORATION, USA

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEL CORPORATION ITALIA S.p.A. con unico socio
Sede: Milanofiori Palazzo E 4
CAP 20094 Assago (MI)
Capitale Sociale Euro 104.000,00 interamente versato
Partita I.V.A. e Codice Fiscale  04236760155
Repertorio Economico Amministrativo n. 997124
Registro delle Imprese di Milano nr. 183983/5281/33
Soggetta ad attivita' di direzione e coordinamento di
INTEL CORPORATION, USA

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.