Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

safetyresearch.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 108 posts

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#31

Post by tinco »

benihana wrote: post #27
TerraHertz wrote: post #3

I'm a retired electronics design engineer and embedded programmer, and I will NEVER own a car with any kind of vehicle/engine management computer. Old cars for me, forever. I flatly refuse anything but fully manual and direct mechanical gears, clutch, steering, brakes and throttle. Curiously the chief engineer I knew at a major car service center, also felt the same way. And that's not even touching on the insanity o…

I love the absurdity of this and arbitrariness. You'll happily drive in a car, one of the most dangerous machines people use regularly. But if it has a computer in it, no siree, that's when things get too deadly to deal with. All of the other thousands of moving parts, like the thing that takes energy-dense hydrocarbons and ignites them several thousand times a second in hot, high pressure tubes - that's fine and tot…

You make it seem silly. But the energy-dense hydrocarbons get combusted in steel/aluminium enclosures that have been battle tested in millions of systems for over 60 years. For it to go wrong billions of atoms need to be displaced at huge energies (much higher than the single combustion).

The ECU however, was probably made ~10 years ago by a team of highly incompetent software developers trained as electronics engineers, with no access to any previous attempts by other companies and progressively getting worse over time (instead of being perfected). To make the ECU do something it wasn't made to do all it needs is a mere low voltage event just enough to flip a crucial bit, and many bits are crucial.

Not that I don't agree that it's silly to not drive cars with an ECU, but just saying that his point has merit.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#32

Post by tonylemesmer »

w0utert wrote: post #26
TerraHertz wrote: post #3

I'm a retired electronics design engineer and embedded programmer, and I will NEVER own a car with any kind of vehicle/engine management computer. Old cars for me, forever. I flatly refuse anything but fully manual and direct mechanical gears, clutch, steering, brakes and throttle. Curiously the chief engineer I knew at a major car service center, also felt the same way. And that's not even touching on the insanity o…

I drive a 25 year old car that perfectly fits your description, but that's just because I like the way it handles, how it looks, and because it has a little more personality to it than all the dime-a-dozen cars you see on every corner of the street. What I don't understand is how you can rationalize your preferences by thinking these old cars are safer because they don't have any software-defined points of failure. T…

he / she didn't mention safety.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#33

Post by rl3 »

TerraHertz wrote: post #3

I'm a retired electronics design engineer and embedded programmer, and I will NEVER own a car with any kind of vehicle/engine management computer. Old cars for me, forever. I flatly refuse anything but fully manual and direct mechanical gears, clutch, steering, brakes and throttle. Curiously the chief engineer I knew at a major car service center, also felt the same way. And that's not even touching on the insanity o…

>And that's not even touching on the insanity of building computerized vehicle systems with always-on GSM data links to the Net. Ask Michael Hastings how that worked out for him.

Thing is, if attackers that advanced are out to get you, you're pretty much screwed regardless.

Had Hastings been driving a classic car, I'm sure he would have suffered a tragic drug overdose or something instead.

Besides, even if your car isn't computerized, there's plenty of others on the road with you that are.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#34

Post by ebbv »

stretchwithme wrote: post #9

These unintended acceleration incidents seem to happen mostly to elderly drivers. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/03/how-real...

And more importantly than that there are a couple of underlying facts that invalidate the whole premise that unintended acceleration means automatic accidents/death:

1) None of these cars are 700hp Supras that accelerate at drastic speeds. These were normal consumer cars that frankly aren't that fast even with the throttle fully depressed.

2) The brakes in all of these vehicles are many times more powerful than the engine. Pressing the brakes would have stopped the vehicles, even if the engine were attempting to accelerate full throttle.

In most cases I would never side with the corporation over average people. But this is one of those rare cases where lawyers were able to hire dishonest "experts" and snow over the judge and jury and get an unjust verdict.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#35

Post by TeMPOraL »

Lewton wrote: post #22
TeMPOraL wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point. We already know it doesn't work. Most recent examples would be Heartbleed, ShellShock, etc.

OSS having bugs is not proof that open sourcing software won't lead to less bugs.

I'm only trying to show that you can't shout "Open Source!" and get magical immunity from bugs in life-critical software. We need to think of something else instead, or in addition to, open-sourcing to meaningfully reduce the amount of those bugs.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#36

Post by w0utert »

tonylemesmer wrote: post #32
w0utert wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drive a 25 year old car that perfectly fits your description, but that's just because I like the way it handles, how it looks, and because it has a little more personality to it than all the dime-a-dozen cars you see on every corner of the street. What I don't understand is how you can rationalize your preferences by thinking these old cars are safer because they don't have any software-defined points of failure. T…

he / she didn't mention safety.

The article is about software systems leading to safety risks. I'd say safety is implied when an electronics designer comments on it that he/she would never drive a car that relies on software to ensure safe operation. Not worth splitting hairs over IMO.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#38

Post by a3n »

brohee wrote: post #4
swiley wrote: post #2

Critical systems should be open source by law.

Not sure it would help any, it's not exactly hard to find very low quality code on Github. It IMHO shows a failure of the type approval process, maybe it didn't evolve enough with regard to the amount of software used in safety critical components. Inspiration from aircraft certification would likely be mùore than welcome in that regard...

> Not sure it would help any, it's not exactly hard to find very low quality code on Github.

Because it's open and findable. I think that was the point.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#39

Post by delinka »

Jansemon wrote: post #37

How can breaks not stop the engine?! Parking break being a different thing, but the main ones?

"Brakes" are at the wheels. The only time stopping a car from rolling also affects the engine is when everything remains engaged (manual transmission, manual clutch; in gear, clutch not depressed to the floor.) In a vehicle with an automatic transmission, the transmission begins to disengage from the wheels as the wheels spin slower than the engine is pushing. (Very simplified explanation...)

i.e. brakes on cars are not designed the stop the engine but to absorb the vehicle's momentum.

Re: Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of “Spaghetti” Code (2013)

#40

Post by Jemmeh »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #35
Lewton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OSS having bugs is not proof that open sourcing software won't lead to less bugs.

I'm only trying to show that you can't shout "Open Source!" and get magical immunity from bugs in life-critical software. We need to think of something else instead, or in addition to, open-sourcing to meaningfully reduce the amount of those bugs.

I agree. The main component of safety and security--is making it part of the software development process itself. Nothing can substitute for that, and it's what the article is addressing.

Open source would be "nice", but it's just the training wheels, while safety and security baked into the process is the front tire. Might help it from not falling over but you're not going anywhere in the right direction without the right foundation.

Post reply on HN