Breaking News
News & Analysis

Toyota Case: Single Bit Flip That Killed

10/25/2013 03:35 PM EDT
107 comments
Page 1 / 3 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 11 / 11
Frank Eory
User Rank
Author
Re: Single bit flip
Frank Eory   10/25/2013 5:10:07 PM
NO RATINGS
If I may expand on my above comment a little further:

"Memory corruption as little as one bit flip can cause a task to die. This can happen by hardware single-event upsets -- i.e., bit flip -- or via one of the many software bugs, such as buffer overflows and race conditions, we identified in the code."

So he mentions hardware SEU, but also software bugs like buffer overflows & race conditions, which makes me wonder the following:

Consider a hypothetical safety-critical system that many might consider very well-engineered. Suppose that the software in this system is so well done & well-tested that there are no buffer overflows, no race conditions, no possibility of software-induced memory corruption whatsoever. In this hypothetical near-perfect system, the only way for memory to get corrupted is by SEU, and then only if the SEU goes uncorrected or the fail-safe systems fail to guard against it.

Suppose further that the engineers carefully considered SEU, and included fairly powerful ECC to guard against it's ill effects. Perhaps they even considered how much higher the SEU rate might be in a high-altitude city during peak solar flare activity. Is that enough? As I mentioned above, we're still dealing with probabilities that can never be zero.

I am in no way trying to defend buggy software or buggy hardware, I'm just asking how far does one have to go, and will it ever be far enough?

Larry: I had already posted the above before I saw your reply.

"If you look at modern automotive control systems they are beginning to introduce redundant voting controls. This is an effective way of effectively eliminating this type of error, be it from hardware or software."

Redundanct voting controls, dual CPUs running the same code in lock step, and so on. But the key statement you made is that these are a way of "effectively eliminating this type of error" and I am asking how effective must "effectively" be, in quantitative terms?

Caleb Kraft
User Rank
Author
Re: Hard to tell what actually happened
Caleb Kraft   10/25/2013 5:07:36 PM
yeah, throwing it in neutral sounds like the ultimate solution. however, in that instant of completely unexpected acceleration, much damage can be done before even the most vigilant person can respond.

LarryM99
User Rank
Author
Re: Single bit flip
LarryM99   10/25/2013 5:07:09 PM
NO RATINGS
I've worked around control software for nuclear devices, which obviously operate by a different set of rules than just about any other. One interesting safeguard is testing within the body of critical functions to ensure that the function was entered at the top, rather than as a random jump into the body of the code (potentially the kind of error that could result from cosmic rays). One of the guys on our team was former military, and he told us that they had running bets whether the missiles would actually fire, given a valid control sequence. None of them believed that it would fire by accident.

If you look at modern automotive control systems they are beginning to introduce redundant voting controls. This is an effective way of effectively eliminating this type of error, be it from hardware or software.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
Re: Single bit flip
junko.yoshida   10/25/2013 5:02:27 PM
NO RATINGS
I am not sure which "safety standard" you are referring to here. If you can clarify that, I could ask the expert. Thanks.

Bert22306
User Rank
Author
Hard to tell what actually happened
Bert22306   10/25/2013 5:00:10 PM
NO RATINGS
It's certainly the case that tasks can die, and require a system reboot. That's why you have watchdog timers in control system software. In the description of the problem, it appears that several tasks died simultaneoiusly, although we don't know which tasks nor how simultaneous they were.

And it's also not clear whether individual task were monitored correctly, and whether it was the simultaneous nature of the failures that created a case where the reboots didn't occur.

Also, it looks like they found several potential mechanisms, not necessarily THE cause. One way to design around this sort of problem, although nothing will be 100 percent, is to have redundant processes do the same computations, and then compare the control signal at the output. If there's no match, you default to no acceleration.

The last safety measure is of course the driver. If unintended acceleration occurs, certaily in a 2005 car, put the car in neutral and shut off the engine!

Frank Eory
User Rank
Author
Re: Single bit flip
Frank Eory   10/25/2013 4:36:43 PM
NO RATINGS
Although the quote about the danger of a "single bit flip" seems to have been in the context of software bugs -- it's hard to tell just from the quotes in this interview -- Barr also mentions single event upset. Memory bit errors (so-called "soft error rate") are a more of a hardware & system design issue, at least to the extent that the design includes mirroring, error detection and/or correction or other fail-safe measures.

At modern VLSI geometries, the soft error rate of an SRAM bit cell being bombarded with cosmic radiation at ground level is not as inconsequential as one might think -- especially for critical safety systems.

It makes one wonder how blame can be attributed to software in a system in which the source of the error may have been a random SRAM bit that was flipped by an alpha particle or other natural radiation event. Is the failure being blamed on software, or is it an overall laxity of hardware plus software that failed to prevent all of those 16 million possible ways a software task can die? How much fail-safing & hardware redundancy is enough to adequately protect against these events? In the end, it is a probabalitic issue, and the probability of failure will never be zero.

 

DrFPGA
User Rank
Author
Single bit flip
DrFPGA   10/25/2013 4:13:48 PM
NO RATINGS
I hope the analysis did some comparisons to accepted standards for safety. Which standards were followed?

<<   <   Page 11 / 11
Most Recent Comments
Susan Rambo
 
Max The Magnificent
 
Akira Kurosawa
 
AKH0
 
witeken
 
dromdrom
 
AKH0
 
Lefty4
 
AKH0

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed