ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Hardware assisted pre-emptive control flow checking for embedded processors to improve reliability
Full text PdfPdf (214 KB)
Source International Conference on Hardware Software Codesign archive
Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Hardware/software codesign and system synthesis table of contents
Seoul, Korea
SESSION: Embedded security and reliability table of contents
Pages: 100 - 105  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-370-0
Authors
Roshan G. Ragel  University of New South Wales and National ICT Australia, Sydney NSW, Australia
Sri Parameswaran  University of New South Wales and National ICT Australia, Sydney NSW, Australia
Sponsors
SIGDA: ACM Special Interest Group on Design Automation
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGBED: ACM Special Interest Group on Embedded Systems
SIGMICRO: ACM Special Interest Group on Microarchitectural Research and Processing
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 17,   Downloads (12 Months): 49,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1176254.1176280
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Reliability in embedded processors can be improved by control flow checking and such checking can be conducted using software or hardware. Proposed software-only approaches suffer from significant code size penalties, resulting in poor performance. Proposed hardware-assisted approaches are not scalable and therefore cannot be implemented in real embedded systems. This paper presents a scalable, cost effective and novel fault detection technique, to ensure proper control flow of a program. This technique includes architectural changes to the processor and software modifications. While architectural refinement incorporates additional instructions, the software transformation utilizes these instructions into the program flow. Applications from an embedded systems benchmark suite are used for testing and evaluation. The overheads are compared with the state of the art approach that performs the same error coverage using software-only techniques. Our method has greatly reduced overheads compared to the state of the art. Our approach increased code size by between 3.85-11.2% and reduced performance by just 0.24-1.47% for eight different industry standard applications. The additional hardware (gates) overhead in this approach was just 3.59%. In contrast, the state of the art software-only approach required 50-150% additional code, and reduced performance by 53.5-99.5% when error detection was inserted.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
X. Delord and G. Saucier. Control flow checking in pipelined RISC microprocessors: the Motorola MC88100 case study. In EUROMICRO '90, pages 162--169, June 1990.
 
4
 
5
B. Eschermann. On combining off-line BIST and on-line control flow checking. In FTCS -22, pages 298--305, July 1992.
6
 
7
 
8
J. Gaisler. Concurrent error-detection and modular fault-tolerance in a 32-bit processing core for embedded space flight applications. In FTCS '94, pages 128--130, 1994.
 
9
 
10
O. Goloubeva et al. Improved software-based processor control-flow errors detection technique. In Reliability and maintainability symposium, pages 583--589, January 2005.
 
11
 
12
 
13
R. Leveugle, T. Michel, and G. Saucier. Design of Microprocessors with Built-in On-line Test. In FTCS-20, pages 450--456, June 1990.
 
14
D. J. Lu. Watchdog processors and structural integrity checking. IEEE Trans. Computers, 31(7):681--685, 1982.
 
15
 
16
H. Madeira and J. Silva. On-line signature learning and checking: experimental evaluation. In COMPEURO '91, pages 642--643, July 1991.
 
17
 
18
L. McFearin and V. Nair. Control-flow checking using assertions. In DCCA '5, pages 103--112. IEEE Computer Society Press, September 1995.
 
19
T. Michel, R. Leveugle, and G. Saucier. A new approach to control flow checking without program modification. In FTCS 21, pages 334--341, 1991.
 
20
T. Michel et al. An application specific microprocessor with two-level built-in control flow checking capabilities. In EURO ASIC '92, pages 310--313, 1992.
 
21
G. Miremadi et al. Two software techniques for on-line error detection. In FTCS 22, pages 328--335, July 1992.
 
22
G. Miremadi et al. Use of time and address signatures for control flow checking. In DCCS '5, pages 201--221, September 1995.
 
23
V. S. S. Nair et al. Design and evaluation of automated high-level checks for signal processing applications. In spie advanced algorithms and architectures for signal processing conference, pages 292--301, August 1996.
 
24
M. Namjoo. Techniques for concurrent testing of vlsi processor operation. Test Conference, pages 461--468, 1982.
 
25
 
26
J. Ohlsson, M. Rimen, and U. Gunneflo. A study of the effects of transient fault injection into a 32-bit risc with built-in watchdog. In FTCS '22, pages 316--325, 1992.
 
27
 
28
B. Ramamurthy and S. Upadhyaya. Watchdog processor-assisted fast recovery in distributed systems. In Fifth Dependable computing for critical applications, pages 125--134, 1995.
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
32
M. A. Schuette et al. Experimental evaluation of two concurrent error detection schemes. In FTCS '16, pages 138--143, July 1986.
 
33
J. Sosnowski. Detection of control flow errors using signature and checking instructions. IEEE International Test Conference, pages 81--88, 1988.
 
34
The PEAS Team. ASIP Meister, Available at http://www.eda-meister.org/asip-meister/, 2002.
 
35
 
36
K. Wilken and J. Shen. Continuous signature monitoring: low-cost concurrent detection of processor control errors. Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, pages 629--641, June 1990.
 
37
S. S. Yau and F. Chen. An approach to concurrent control flow checking. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 6(2):126--137, 1980.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Roshan G. Ragel: colleagues
Sri Parameswaran: colleagues