A Runtime Risk Assessment Concept for Safe Reconfiguration in Open Adaptive Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10489)

Abstract

Adaptivity is a consequential requirement for software systems that allow integration of components or devices at runtime. Dynamic integration of components and a subsequent reconfiguration during operation causes change in both functional and non-functional properties of the system. Since these systems often operate in Safety-Critical environment, safety becomes a crucial characteristic to be taken under consideration during reconfiguration. In this paper, we introduce a dynamic metrics based runtime risk assessment approach for safe reconfiguration in open adaptive systems. We combine design time safety analysis and runtime monitoring to evaluate risk factors of potential configurations of an adaptive component at runtime. Based on the evaluated risk factors the configurations are assigned a dynamic rank in an increasing order of their risk. During reconfiguration the adaptive component conforms to the ranking, thereby activating the configuration with lowest associated risk.

Keywords

Open adaptive systems Safety assurance Runtime risk assessment Safe reconfiguration Dynamic metrics 

References

  1. 1.
    Cheng, B.H.C., et al.: Software engineering for self-adaptive systems: a research roadmap. In: Cheng, B.H.C., Lemos, R., Giese, H., Inverardi, P., Magee, J. (eds.) Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems. LNCS, vol. 5525, pp. 1–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02161-9_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pristerjahn, C., Tichy, M.: Modeling safe reconfiguration with the FUJABA real-time tool suite. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Fujaba Days, pp. 14–20 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sundararajan, C.: Guide to Reliability Engineering, Data Analysis, Application, Implementation and Management. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schneider, D.: Conditional safety certification for open adaptive systems. Ph.D. thesis (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Habli, I.: Dynamic safety cases for through-life safety assurance. In: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering ICSE, pp. 587–590 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, E.: Cyber physical systems: design challenges. Berkeley Technical report no. UCB/EECS-2008-8Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Munson, J.C., Khoshgoftaar, T.M.: Software metrics for reliability assessment. In: Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 493–529. McGraw-Hill, Inc., Hightstown (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rushby, J.: Runtime certification. In: Leucker, M. (ed.) RV 2008. LNCS, vol. 5289, pp. 21–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89247-2_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bell, M.: Introduction to Service-Oriented Modeling. Service-Oriented Modeling: Service Analysis, Design, and Architecture. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weiser, M.: Some computer science issues in ubiquitous computing. Commun. ACM 36(7), 75–84 (1993). doi:10.1145/159544.159617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yacoub, S.M., Ammar, H.H.: A methodology for architecture-level reliability risk analysis. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(6), 529–547 (2002). doi:10.1109/TSE.2002.1010058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Software Engineering: DependabilityUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations