On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Chris Tromley <[email protected]> wrote: > What kind of validation protocols do you think the automakers are > subjecting their code to? And what regulatory body approves it? Remember > the BMW luxo-barge that had to be recalled because the entry/security > software would occasionally lock occupants INSIDE the car? That's right, > once you were in you couldn't get out without breaking a window or calling > a cop or locksmith.
Supporting your point from the perspective of another automaker, I found the following article interesting a few months ago: http://www.edn.com/design/automotive/4423428/Toyota-s-killer-firmware--Bad-design-and-its-consequences ... Stack overflow. Toyota claimed only 41% of the allocated stack space was being used. Barr's investigation showed that 94% was closer to the truth. On top of that, stack-killing, MISRA-C rule-violating recursion was found in the code, and the CPU doesn't incorporate memory protection to guard against stack overflow. ... Although Toyota had performed a stack analysis, Barr concluded the automaker had completely botched it. Toyota missed some of the calls made via pointer, missed stack usage by library and assembly functions (about 350 in total), and missed RTOS use during task switching. They also failed to perform run-time stack monitoring. ... A litany of other faults were found in the code, including buffer overflow, unsafe casting, and race conditions between tasks. _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
