An efficient control-flow checking technique for the detection of soft-errors in embedded software

Boroomandnezhad, Tahereh; Azgomi, Mohammad Abdollahi

doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2013.03.015

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two software approaches described in [16] and [17] use similar technique for the checking optimisation. They look inside the program and select only the frequent parts of the program.…”

Section: A Principle Of the Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the 10% of the program code is located and checked in fast hardware way the overhead of the CFC method will decrease. Detailed algorithm for choosing frequent blocks is described in [17]. However, this algorithm does not include the input vector of the program which can affect the selection of the frequent basic blocks.…”

Section: A Principle Of the Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the same algorithms we can compare the effectiveness of the new method. There are many measurable parameters for the CFC methods comparison (from [4], [16], [17]) such program size overhead, execution time overhead, error detection coverage, error detection latency, performance overhead, memory overhead, applicability in modern processors, etc. We expect less memory and performance overhead with higher fault coverage after applying our method.…”

Section: B Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interactive hybrid Control-flow checking method

Duricek

Krajcovic

2014

2014 International Conference on Applied Electronics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Embedded systems are often used for special purposes. When an embedded system is operating in a critical environment, its reliability should be focused on. One of the methods for improving reliability of embedded systems is Control-flow checking (CFC) of the running program. It is known that the control-flow errors comprise between 33% and 77% of all errors in a computer system [1]. Nowadays there are many controlflow checking methods for different types of computer systems and with various designs. There are hardware checking methods using an external watchdog processor, software methods applied on commercial off-the-shelf processors or hybrid methods. In this paper we are dealing with problems of existing methods, identifying their parameters and presenting a new method of interactive hybrid control-flow checking. This method is a compromise among hybrid methods and tries to optimise the checking speed with high fault coverage.

show abstract

“…Two software approaches described in [16] and [17] use similar technique for the checking optimisation. They look inside the program and select only the frequent parts of the program.…”

Section: A Principle Of the Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Principle Of the Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interactive hybrid Control-flow checking method

Duricek

Krajcovic

2014

2014 International Conference on Applied Electronics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vice versa indicates that the control flow is wrong. These methods [15][16][17][18] and CFCSS work in the same way.…”

Section: Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Configurable Software-based Approach for Detecting CFEs Caused by Transient Faults

2021

KSII TIIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transient faults occur in computation units of a processor, which can cause control flow errors (CFEs) and compromise system reliability. The software-based methods perform illegal control flow detection by inserting redundant instructions and monitoring signature. However, the existing methods not only have drawbacks in terms of performance overhead, but also lack of configurability. We propose a configurable approach CCFCA for detecting CFEs. The configurability of CCFCA is implemented by analyzing the criticality of each region and tuning the detecting granularity. For critical regions, program blocks are divided according to space-time overhead and reliability constraints, so that protection intensity can be configured flexibly. For other regions, signature detection algorithms are only used in the first basic block and last basic block. This helps to improve the fault-tolerant efficiency of the CCFCA. At the same time, CCFCA also has the function of solving confusion and instruction self-detection. Our experimental results show that CCFCA incurs only 10.61% performance overhead on average for several C benchmark program and the average undetected error rate is only 9.29%. CCFCA has high error coverage and low overhead compared with similar algorithms. This helps to meet different cost requirements and reliability requirements.

show abstract

“…Data flow errors lead to the corruption of data values in the program, causing a wrong intermediate value and thus final output value. In contrast, control flow errors lead to a jump (inter-and intra-block) in the program execution order, causing a system to hang or crash [9,11,19,23,28]. To improve the reliability and integrity of systems, fault tolerance should be included.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cdfedt

Thati

Vankeirsbilck

Penneman

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Embedded systems used in harsh environments are susceptible to bit-flips, which can cause data flow errors. In order to increase the reliability of embedded systems, numerous data flow error detection techniques have already been developed. It is, however, difficult to identify the best technique to apply, due to differences in the way they are evaluated in current literature.This paper presents an empirical comparative study of seven existing techniques. We measured fault coverage, execution time overhead, and code size overhead. We conclude that soft error detection using software redundancy (SEDSR) and error detection by duplicated instructions (EDDI) have a better trade-off between fault coverage and overheads than software-implemented fault tolerance (SWIFT), critical block duplication (CBD), and overhead reduction (VAR3+). Error detection by diverse data and duplicated instructions (ED 4 I or EDDDDI) and software approach (SA) had better fault coverage at the expense of execution time and code size usage.

show abstract

An efficient control-flow checking technique for the detection of soft-errors in embedded software

Cited by 7 publications

References 16 publications

Interactive hybrid Control-flow checking method

Interactive hybrid Control-flow checking method

A Configurable Software-based Approach for Detecting CFEs Caused by Transient Faults

Cdfedt

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About