Feature: System security
vulnerabilities/bugs aſter testing constitutes a guarantee. Using sound tools is critical for thorough and complete analysis
because it allows you to assert that no undefined behaviours found through a sound tool equals no undefined behaviour in the analysed code.
Improving ISO 26262 process certification Unit verification and soſtware integration and verification account for approximately 40% of the soſtware workload in the ISO 26262 process, regardless of the ASIL level; see Table 1. Exhaustive static analysis tools are able to contribute at a medium-
high level at the soſtware unit verification and soſtware integration level, enabling developers to reach ASIL D ISO 26262 certification more efficiently.
ISO 26262 part 6 specifies the recommended methods to develop
certified products. A formal methods-based tool can contribute – and, in many cases, reduce the level of effort – to several key areas of soſtware verification and tests. Tese contributions to qualification and benefits to development
teams are the ability to: • Gain confidence through several analysis methods required by the ISO 26262 standard, including rules compliance, semi-formal methods (i.e., formal methods acting on code rather than methods acting on model-based design notation), control and data flow, code coverage, and structural coverage measurement.
• Experience decreased effort in planning, running and addressing the results of unit and integration tests by running a wide range of input values at the same time, including 100% of the expected input and out-of-range values, eliminating the need to run tests sequentially using different sets of input values. Tis is true for the fault injection and terminal value analysis stages, for the generation and analysis of equivalence classes, and for the analysis of requirements for both functional and global interface tests.
• Benefit from decreased effort in planning, running and addressing the results of traditional static analysis tools (such as straight MISRA compliance tools), with fewer rules required to verify the absence of undefined behaviours (UBs) in the soſtware, and to demonstrate the absence of the negative effects of non-compliance to other sets of rules.
• Reap the benefits of fewer coding rules and fewer alarms to handle: Exclusively focus on issues that cause safety problems, resulting in many fewer alarms to handle, low number of false positives, no effort expended to justify many alarms, and no developer fatigue due to wasting time reviewing many alarms. • Gain improved confidence in the
achievement of safety goals by proving the efficiency of the safety mechanisms implemented in software and the absence of UBs in the software through robust formal methods and soundness. All of these significantly contribute to reducing the efforts
linked to unit verification and software integration and verification. Beyond these benefits, target emulation features make it possible to accurately reflect the exact characteristics of the target. This also allows developers to run tests without being near the hardware, which means the number of iterations of tests on the target hardware platform can be reduced, hence reducing the overall effort required. It also reduces the number of hardware/emulators for the tests and compensates for hardware unavailability. This can be a plus for remote developers/testers, allowing them to find hardware-specific problems on any host. With these activities in place, the potential recovery costs due to late detection of bugs will also be lower.
Impact With exhaustive static analysis provided by formal methods- based tools like TrustInSoft Analyzer, developers can shift further left in their development cycles, testing processes with regard to fault injection, robustness testing, detecting undefined behaviours, and identifying inexecutable code and code that can be executed but has no effect on the functional behaviour of the program. TrustInSoft Analyzer, qualified as an ISO 26262-compliant tool, allows you to not only increase your confidence level, but also reduce your workload and costs.
Table 1: Unit verification and software integration and verification account approximately for 40% of the software workload in the ISO 26262 process, regardless of the ASIL level
www.electronicsworld.co.uk June 2024 15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
