Conversation
|
|
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-baselibs-safety-analysis
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fb28f1c to
ca3a65c
Compare
aschemmel-tech
requested review from
a team,
PandaeDo and
masc2023
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DFA document is still draft, where the dfa need are already valid?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks for the hint, after consulting the guideline, I set the needs which are "not sufficient" to invalid.
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-baselibs-safety-analysis
branch
from
ca3a65c to
e612595
Compare
PandaeDo
left a comment
PandaeDo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't get the FMEA approach for the moment. Looking forward for your explaination in the meeting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would expect :security: YES because the architecture is also security related.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, this came from error in template - @PandaeDo will correct the templates
| * - UI_01_04 | ||
| - Deadlocks | ||
| - yes | ||
| - shared memory or file access may lead to deadlock, link to need |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add the link to the need
| * - UI_01_06 | ||
| - Blocking of execution | ||
| - yes | ||
| - As baselibs are in context of a application, they may block execution, link to need |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add the link to the need
| * - UI_01_10 | ||
| - CPU time depletion | ||
| - yes | ||
| - Baselibs may deplete or suffer from depletion, link to need |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add the link to the need
| * - UI_01_02 | ||
| - Read/Write access to memory allocated to another software element | ||
| - yes | ||
| - As baselibs are in context of a application, they may access their memory, link to need |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add the link to the need
| :failure_effect: memory of using component may be corrupted leading to safety requirement violation | ||
| :mitigation_issue: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/2816 | ||
| :sufficient: no | ||
| :status: invalid |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the status correct? Until the mitigation is open it's sufficent to show this with the attribute sufficient.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, change to valid and also the doc status. Error in process reqs (mitigation) - @PandaeDo will correct
| :failure_effect: Using application is blocked from execution and thus cannot fulfill its safety function | ||
| :mitigation_issue: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/2816 | ||
| :sufficient: no | ||
| :status: invalid |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the status correct? Until the mitigation is open it's sufficent to show this with the attribute sufficient.
| :status: draft | ||
| :status: valid | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B | ||
| :security: NO |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same question here as in DFA. Would expect :security: yes.
3 participants
No description provided.