From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:50:51 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Tiejun Chen Message-ID: <20180913095051.GC634@kroah.com> References: <20180912162923.GA25894@wrath> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] A Safety-critical Linux system architecture List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 03:13:11AM +0000, Tiejun Chen wrote: > On the other hand, even without something as you said, "understand a > set of use cases, determine safety requirements, and then complete the > methods and procedures". Yes, I tend to agree that we need to make > these stuff clear very well, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't talk > about Linux itself now. Because we already have fundamental issues > right there like, > 1. Real time issue: we need to get Linux being RTOS to meet > safety-critical requirements. So listing what is "lacking" from the existing -rt patchset would be great, I'm sure those developers would want to know this. Combined with some resources to help get the remaining -rt patches merged upstream would also be great. > 2. Partitioning {software, hardware}resources: we need to have strong > barrier to providing such an evidence that one program can't interact > with another in any ways including shared memory, interrupts, etc. What is preventing you from adding this to Linux now? > 3. How to "remove" or disable any unnecessary or unused codes in > safety-critical environment. If unused code is unused, why is it an issue? And how do you describe "unnecessary"? Who determines this? > 4. documentations to safety and security in Linux. What type of documentation is lacking? These are all very generic questions/topics, why not propose a talk for the KS track at Plumbers for it? Or many talks as these really are a lot of different, individual things. thanks, greg k-h