Skip to content

Initial FMEA for HM Library#25

Closed
pawelrutkaq wants to merge 3 commits intoeclipse-score:mainfrom
qorix-group:pawelrutkaq_fmea
Closed

Initial FMEA for HM Library#25
pawelrutkaq wants to merge 3 commits intoeclipse-score:mainfrom
qorix-group:pawelrutkaq_fmea

Conversation

@pawelrutkaq
Copy link
Contributor

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq commented Dec 31, 2025

No description provided.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 31, 2025 •
edited
Loading

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output 
[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.4.2) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 9b970e1b-3e52-436d-a1d7-0024b46867c8
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
DEBUG: Rule 'rust_qnx8_toolchain+' indicated that a canonical reproducible form can be obtained by modifying arguments integrity = "sha256-eQOopREOYCL5vtTb6c1cwZrql4GVrJ1FqgxarQRe1xs="
DEBUG: Repository rust_qnx8_toolchain+ instantiated at:
  <builtin>: in <toplevel>
Repository rule http_archive defined at:
  /home/runner/.bazel/external/bazel_tools/tools/build_defs/repo/http.bzl:431:31: in <toplevel>
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 2 packages loaded
Loading: 2 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 2 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Analyzing: target //:license-check (3 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (3 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (35 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (89 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (132 packages loaded, 541 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (146 packages loaded, 3854 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (153 packages loaded, 4964 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (153 packages loaded, 4964 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (158 packages loaded, 9517 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (161 packages loaded, 13571 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (161 packages loaded, 13571 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (162 packages loaded, 13697 targets configured).
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 32.498s, Critical Path: 0.42s
INFO: 13 processes: 4 disk cache hit, 9 internal.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 13 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/license.check.license_check ./formatted.txt <args omitted>
usage: org.eclipse.dash.licenses.cli.Main [-batch <int>] [-cd <url>]
       [-confidence <int>] [-ef <url>] [-excludeSources <sources>] [-help] [-lic
       <url>] [-project <shortname>] [-repo <url>] [-review] [-summary <file>]
       [-timeout <seconds>] [-token <token>]

FScholPer
FScholPer previously approved these changes Jan 2, 2026
View reviewed changes
@ramceb ramceb mentioned this pull request Jan 7, 2026
Closed
NicolasFussberger
NicolasFussberger reviewed Jan 7, 2026
View reviewed changes
docs/module/health_monitor/safety_analysis/fmea.rst Outdated
- | **Detection:**
- Missing notifications will be detected by Launch Daemon and lead to safety reaction at Launch Daemon.
| **Mitigation:**
- Provide `AoU` that integrator has to ensure Health Monitor background thread receives sufficient CPU time slice by configuring it's scheduling parameters accordingly.
Copy link
Contributor

@NicolasFussberger NicolasFussberger Jan 7, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this functionality already existing that an integrator can set the policy/priority of the health monitor background thread? I am wondering if this has to be part of a configuration somewhere or is handled via APIs

Copy link
Contributor Author

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Both, we will add this in code and thus it will also be possible to later put thta into config schema.

NicolasFussberger
NicolasFussberger reviewed Jan 7, 2026
View reviewed changes
docs/module/health_monitor/safety_analysis/fmea.rst

Health Monitoring Library is placed in same process as monitored components. Therefore, any other component that shares same process can corrupt memory of Health Monitoring Library. This can lead to missed detection of failure of monitored components.
Since we are using **Rust** as programming language for Health Monitoring Library implementation, we could rely on Rust memory safety guarantees and avoid memory corruption due to programming errors. However we are also supporting C/C++ components
that can introduce memory issues due to programming errors. Therefore, we need to consider additional detection mechanisms. Below description of possible detection mechanisms:
Copy link
Contributor

@NicolasFussberger NicolasFussberger Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A naive question: In terms of safety, do we actually need additional detection measures at runtime against programming errors? I assume we are talking about an ASIL-B application using an ASIL-B library. Is it not the assumption that the additional rigour in the ASIL-B development process protects against such programming errors?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq Jan 7, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For me, that's a gray zone where a simple answer should be 'Yes'. However, I do see a point that, in particular, health component should try to prevent breakage of the rigour, and now the question is how problematic from the impl side we decide to go with.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We took this point in meeting

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq temporarily deployed to workflow-approval January 8, 2026 14:18 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq temporarily deployed to workflow-approval January 9, 2026 12:40 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 9, 2026

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq temporarily deployed to workflow-approval January 9, 2026 12:47 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq changed the title fmea: initial FMEA for discussion Initial FMEA for HM Library Jan 9, 2026
@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq temporarily deployed to workflow-approval January 9, 2026 12:54 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq temporarily deployed to workflow-approval January 9, 2026 12:55 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq closed this Jan 9, 2026
@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq temporarily deployed to workflow-approval January 9, 2026 14:28 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@pawelrutkaq
Copy link
Contributor Author

pawelrutkaq commented Jan 9, 2026

Closed due to bug in workflows eclipse-score/cicd-workflows#52, please review #32

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2026
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@FScholPer FScholPer FScholPer left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@NicolasFussberger NicolasFussberger NicolasFussberger left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@pawelrutkaq @FScholPer @NicolasFussberger