Skip to content

Define the FFI approach #3139

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
ANegm-ETAS wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Define the FFI approach #3139

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7739198
Add FFI approach to platform safety manual
AdhamN861 Jul 23, 2026
92758d7
Update FFI Approach
AdhamN861 Jul 29, 2026
422afea
Add reference to No Mixed ASIL stakeholder requirement
AdhamN861 Jul 30, 2026
8772719
Add reference to ASIL/QM verification methods
AdhamN861 Jul 30, 2026
545128b
Fix Build Build Warnings
AdhamN861 Jul 30, 2026
48b2ae7
Fix Build Build Warning
AdhamN861 Jul 30, 2026
6915802
Fix Broken references
AdhamN861 Jul 30, 2026
40689cc
Refine statements
AdhamN861 Aug 4, 2026
9ead92a
Update language surrounding FFI argument
AdhamN861 Aug 4, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
26 changes: 26 additions & 0 deletions docs/safety/platform_safety_manual.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -34,6 +34,15 @@ Assumptions of Use which are relevant for all users of any platform module.
The specific Assumptions of Use relevant only for the users of a specific module are documented in the module's safety manual.
That means that the platform safety manual always has to be read together with all its modules safety manuals.

A platform module may contain both ASIL-relevant and QM components. The

@FScholPer FScholPer Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should also define what that means for the verification of the component. What is the difference between asil relevant components and qm components in respect to our safety process

@masc2023 masc2023 Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good overview here, what is required for QM and for ASIL
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-3139/platform_management_plan/software_verification.html#id1

@ANegm-ETAS ANegm-ETAS Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

added a reference to ASIL and QM Verification methods

classification is performed at component level and depends on the intended
Comment thread
aschemmel-tech marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Comment thread
aschemmel-tech marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
execution context rather than on the module as a whole. Components that are
intended to execute within an ASIL context are in scope of the applicable ASIL
safety lifecycle and shall be developed, verified, and released according to
the corresponding ASIL process. Components that are not intended to execute
within an ASIL context may remain QM, provided that freedom from interference
with the safety context is justified in the respective module safety manual.
Comment thread
masc2023 marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would have said FFI has nothing to do with the module safety manual. But you can refer to the platform AoU in https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/requirements/platform_assumptions/index.html#aou_req__platform__process_isolation

@ANegm-ETAS ANegm-ETAS Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you're right perhaps the feature DFA is more appropriate justification for FFI.
https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description//main/process_areas/safety_analysis/safety_analysis_workproducts.html#wp__feature_dfa

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Update speaks of a "is justified in respective feature DFA". I think it is not clear which feature DFA this is. I would propose to write instead "is justified in the feature DFAs of the ASIL rated features using the QM component"


Assumed Platform Safety Requirements
------------------------------------

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -93,6 +102,23 @@ The S-CORE SW platform has no safety concept additional to its module's safety c
The expectations towards the execution environment are described in the respective AoU, this is mainly that a safe posix operating system
integrated into a target hardware which includes safety mechanisms which cover hardware related errors.

The platform allows ASIL and QM components to coexist within the same module.
Comment thread
aschemmel-tech marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Where components executing in an ASIL context depend on functionality that has

@masc2023 masc2023 Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As Assumed here, https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-3139/platform_management_plan/software_verification.html#id1
there is already a requirement, if the concept requires components used as part of safety context, is must be ASIL, can directly derived from that stakeholder requirement

@ANegm-ETAS ANegm-ETAS Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is not exactly a new requirement but an attempt to clarify how to apply that requirement in the context of a module that may contain components with different ASIL levels all while maintaining freedom from interference

@masc2023 masc2023 Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, then it is more a safety concept to apply FFI on modules, which are QM, but also to be used from safety relevant component. The Safety Concept means, that the part for interacting with QM part shall be developed according to the required ASIL and run in the same context, etc.

@ANegm-ETAS ANegm-ETAS Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes that was my intention, do you think the current update convey that or do you have a specific recommendation

@masc2023 masc2023 Aug 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

RC would be to explicetely mention, that it is a safety concept, and then explain it in a short as to split component in QM part and additional Safety Part, which allocates the safety requirements as you mentioned

no direct safety purpose, freedom from interference shall be ensured between
the safety-relevant and non-safety-relevant parts. This may require additional
safety requirements to be allocated to components that otherwise only provide
QM functionality. Such requirements exist to preserve the integrity of the
safety context and are applied in addition to the component's functional
requirements.

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would add here the clarification: "All the component's functional requirements will be promoted to ASIL level to ensure the application of the safety lifecycle." - because this is also what is done in the lifecycle example (at least this is what I understood during your presentation of the PR).


For example, the ``mw::log`` frontend is linked into and executed within an
ASIL-B application. Although logging functionality itself may only provide QM
services, the frontend forms part of the ASIL execution context and therefore
must fulfil additional safety requirements derived from the need to maintain
freedom from interference. In contrast, the ``datarouter`` daemon executes as a
separate process and may remain QM, provided that the required freedom from

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would remove the half-sentence "provided that the required freedom from provided that the required freedom from" as it was already stated above. But if you want to keep, please align with the proposed change above.

interference is justified in the module safety manual.
Comment thread
aschemmel-tech marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated


Safety Anomalies
----------------
Expand Down
Loading