Comparing and Validating Measurements of Dependability Attributes

This paper investigates sources of uncertainty in measurement results obtained using three different fault injection techniques. Two software-implemented and one test port-based technique are characterized and compared. The three techniques can be used to inject the same faults, which are defined in a shared database. Due to the uncertainties associated with the techniques, which we identify and discuss, the results of injecting a given fault may differ to some extent. The paper analyzes the results of using the three techniques to inject faults into two experimental targets: a brake-by-wire controller and a partitioning operating system. The objective of the experiments is to determine whether the results of the different techniques are metrologically compatible and, consequently, meaningful when disseminated and compared. Our observations indicate that, even though the outcome of many individual experiments is affected by uncertainties, the three techniques produce similar average results over a large number of experiments.

[1]  Pedro J. Gil,et al.  Non-intrusive Software-Implemented Fault Injection in Embedded Systems , 2003, LADC.

[2]  Harish Patil,et al.  Pin: building customized program analysis tools with dynamic instrumentation , 2005, PLDI '05.

[3]  Dhiraj K. Pradhan,et al.  Fault Injection: A Method for Validating Computer-System Dependability , 1995, Computer.

[4]  Karama Kanoun,et al.  Dependability benchmarking for computer systems , 2008 .

[5]  Jean Arlat,et al.  Fault Injection for Dependability Validation: A Methodology and Some Applications , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[6]  Johan Karlsson,et al.  GOOFI-2: A tool for experimental dependability assessment , 2010, 2010 IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems & Networks (DSN).

[7]  Emmerich Fuchs An Evaluation of the Error Detection Mechanisms in MARS Using Software-Implemented Fault Injection , 1996, EDCC.

[8]  Mário Zenha Rela,et al.  Can Software Implemented Fault-Injection Be Used on Real-Time Systems? , 1999, EDCC.

[9]  Johan Karlsson,et al.  Experiences from Verifying a Partitioning Kernel Using Fault Injection , 2009 .

[10]  Johan Karlsson,et al.  Software Mechanisms for Tolerating Soft Errors in an Automotive Brake-Controller , 2009, DSN 2009.

[11]  S. Standard GUIDE TO THE EXPRESSION OF UNCERTAINTY IN MEASUREMENT , 2006 .

[12]  Trevor Mudge,et al.  MiBench: A free, commercially representative embedded benchmark suite , 2001 .

[13]  Andrea Bondavalli,et al.  Foundations of Measurement Theory Applied to the Evaluation of Dependability Attributes , 2007, 37th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN'07).

[14]  Jacob A. Abraham,et al.  FERRARI: A Flexible Software-Based Fault and Error Injection System , 1995, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[15]  António Correia,et al.  Reset-Driven Fault Tolerance , 2002, EDCC.

[16]  Jean J. Labrosse,et al.  MicroC/OS-II: The Real Time Kernel , 1998 .

[17]  Andrea Bondavalli,et al.  Towards Making NekoStat a Proper Measurement Tool for the Validation of Distributed Systems , 2007, Eighth International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized Systems (ISADS'07).

[18]  R.C. Baumann,et al.  Radiation-induced soft errors in advanced semiconductor technologies , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability.

[19]  Henrique Madeira,et al.  Xception: A Technique for the Experimental Evaluation of Dependability in Modern Computers , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[20]  Daniel P. Siewiorek,et al.  Fault Injection Experiments Using FIAT , 1990, IEEE Trans. Computers.