Advertisement

Assessing Software Interference Management When Modifying Safety-Related Software

  • Patrick J. Graydon
  • Tim P. Kelly
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7613)

Abstract

Many systems deliberately manage interference between software components, e.g. through partitioning. When engineers modifying such software determine which items of verification evidence have been invalidated by changes, they consider interference management measures. A complete understanding of interference and its management is crucial when engineers re-use evidence. In prior work, we suggested: (a) a guided process for identifying interference and means of managing it; and (b) a strategy for arguing about interference management. In this paper, we present the results of a case study meant to answer two questions raised by this prior work: (i) which views of the system engineers should consider when identifying interference and its management; and (ii) whether our argument pattern captures a practical way to argue about interference management.

Keywords

software partitioning interference software change management safety argument 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    AdaCore: Spark pro > language & toolsuite. Web page: http://www.adacore.com/home/products/sparkpro/language_toolsuite/ (October 2011)
  2. 2.
    AADL | getting started. Web page (2011), http://www.aadl.info/aadl/currentsite/start/index.html
  3. 3.
    ARINC 653P1-3: Avionics application software standard interface, Part 1, Required services. Specification, ARINC (November 2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Attwood, K., et al.: GSN Community Standard v. 1. Origin Consulting (2011), http://www.goalstructuringnotation.info/documents/GSN_Standard.pdf
  5. 5.
    CAP 670: Air Traffic Services Safety Requirements. Civil Aviation Authority, West Sussex, United Kingdom (October 2010), http://www.caa.co.uk
  6. 6.
    Certification Authorities Software Team (CAST): Guidelines for assessing software partitioning/protection schemes. Position Paper CAST-2 (February 2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charles, J., Jassi, P., Ananth, N.S., Sadat, A., Fedorova, A.: Evaluation of the Intel® CoreTM i7 Turbo Boost feature. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC), pp. 188–197 (October 2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graydon, P.: Classifying, analysing, and arguing about barriers in modified software systems. Technical Report SSEI-TR-000107, Software Systems Engineering Initiative (May 2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graydon, P.J., Knight, J.C., Yin, X.: Practical Limits on Software Dependability: A Case Study. In: Real, J., Vardanega, T. (eds.) Ada-Europe 2010. LNCS, vol. 6106, pp. 83–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hofmeister, C., Nord, R.L., Soni, D.: Describing software architecture with UML. In: Proceedings of the 1st Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofmeister, C., Nord, R., Soni, D.: Applied Software Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    IEC 61508-3: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems — Part 3: Software requirements. International Electrotechnical Commission, 2nd edn. (April 2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    IEC 61882: Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies) — Application guide. International Electrotechnical Commission, 1st edn. (May 2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO 26262-6:2011: Road vehicles — Functional safety — Part 6: Product development at the software level. International Organization for Standardization (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joint IECCA and MUF Committee on Mascot (JIMCOM): The Official Handbook of Mascot, Version 3.1, Issue 1. Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, UK (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McDermid, J.A., Pumfrey, D.J.: Safety analysis of hardware/software interactions in complex systems. In: Proceedings of the 16th International System Safety Conference, Seattle, WA, pp. 231–241 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG: OMG Unified Modeling LanguageTM(OMG UML): Infrastructure, Version 2.3. Object Management Group (May 2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pumfrey, D.J.: The Principled Design of Computer System Safety Analyses. DPhil thesis, University of York, York, UK (September 1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    RTCA DO-178B: Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. RTCA, Inc., Washington, DC, USA (December 1992)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rushby, J.: Partitioning in avionics architectures: Requirements, mechanisms, and assurance. Technical report NASA/CR-1999/209347, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Hampton, VA, USA (March 2000), http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar99-58.pdf
  21. 21.
    The Chemical Industry Safety and Health Council: A Guide to Hazard and Operability Studies. Chemical Industries Association (1977)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick J. Graydon
    • 1
  • Tim P. Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.University of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations