GOOFI-2: A tool for experimental dependability assessment

Abstract

This paper presents GOOFI-2, a comprehensive fault in jection tool for experimental dependability assessment of embedded systems. The tool includes a large number of ex tensions and improvements over its predecessor, GOOF!. These include support for three widely used fault injection techniques, two target processors, and a variety of new features for storing, disseminating and analyzing experi mental data. We report on our experiences and lessons learned from the use and development ofGOOFI-2. In par ticular, we compare and discuss properties of three fault injection techniques: Nexus-based, exception-based and instrumentation-based injection. The comparison relies on several sets of experiments with two target processors, Freescale's MPC565 and MPC5554.

Light-Weight Techniques for Improving the Controllability and Efficiency of ISA-Level Fault Injection Tools

“…The ability to control when and where a fault is injected could help us design efficient fault injection campaigns. This is already addressed by works such as [12] where faults are identified by timelocation pairs according to a fault-free execution of a program. In this paper, we improve controllability by identifying the type of data-items that are potential fault injection candidates, prior to conducting fault injection experiments.…”

“…According to Barbosa et al [23], the pre-injection analysis reduced the fault space two orders of magnitude for the registers and four to five orders of magnitude for the memory locations. Tools such as GOOFI-2 [12] and FAIL* [8] use the inject-on-read fault injection technique.…”

“…Fault injection techniques could be characterized based on different properties such as repeatability, the ability to repeat the injection of a specific fault and obtain the same results; observability, the ability to observe and measure the effects of an injected fault; reachability, the ability to reach possible fault locations in a processor; intrusiveness, the level of unintended impact on the temporal and spatial behavior of the target system; efficiency, the time and effort needed to conduct a fault injection campaign (a fault injection campaign is a set of fault injection experiments using the same fault model on a given workload); and controllability, the ability to control when and where a fault is injected [12] [18] [19].…”

“…Several fault injection techniques have been proposed in the past decades; they can be categorized into simulationbased techniques [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], software-implemented techniques [9] [10] [11] [12], hardware-based techniques [13] [14] [15], and test port-based techniques [8] [12] [16] [17].…”

From Safety Analyses to Experimental Validation of Automotive Embedded Systems

“…This research domain has been active for more than 20 years and many tools have been developed -see e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14]. FI has recently received renewed attention in the automotive domain since the settlement of ISO 26262, and for faultinjection benchmarking of embedded systems [2], [15].…”