41–50 of 196 posts
I didn't know they used containers in cars. I guess it makes sense when you think about it but it always felt like more of an "enterprise" solution to me.
[0]: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-and-g...
I'm all for improvements to pod startup times etc, but the general idea of putting more software into cars is not that appealing. I recently broke down in the highlands of Scotland in a fairly new car with the family - it was a horrible experience. It was made worse by the fact that there was nobody close that had a clue what to do with the car. The breakdown service arrived promptly, plugged the diagnostic tool into…
Heh, we were stuck in a carpark for 3 hours because the 2025 battery cell in our key remote went dead on a cold walk around a local lake. It's supposed to have a backup but, like most backups, I hadn't tested that it works and for some reason the RFID reader part wouldn't connect with the car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, we were stuck in a carpark for 3 hours because the 2025 battery cell in our key remote went dead on a cold walk around a local lake. It's supposed to have a backup but, like most backups, I hadn't tested that it works and for some reason the RFID reader part wouldn't connect with the car.
Are 2025 battery cells batteries from the future?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said it so well, cars have become too bloated with software that barely any local mechanic would want to touch it. Happened to me and this is the major reason why I am slowly shifting to older cars, they are way easier and cheaper to repair.
Same here - I have owned an old petrol Vauxhall for years as my runaround car and it's so much easier to deal with. The big issue I have with newer cars is that the computers mask any developing issues until they get to a point when they just give up. A less sophicsticated car starts to just feel different a long time before it outright fails.
Trust me, it is a difference you can feel.
Constraints (car env) drive creativity !
I'm all for improvements to pod startup times etc, but the general idea of putting more software into cars is not that appealing. I recently broke down in the highlands of Scotland in a fairly new car with the family - it was a horrible experience. It was made worse by the fact that there was nobody close that had a clue what to do with the car. The breakdown service arrived promptly, plugged the diagnostic tool into…
More software is fine IMO. More software on critical path ain't. Have the ECU only do the engine thing. Have the AC control just do AC control. Decouple dependencies and make it as simple as possible. Old cars already do it. Blinker switch send signal directly to light controller, not to some central box deciding what it should do with it. If something needs config in addition to control signals, have it keep it own…
Based on the story in the parent, it sounds like this was precisely a problem with software on the critical path, otherwise local mecs/breakdown service would have been able to fix it rather than give up.
> If the backup camera or other sensors were to run as containers, we needed to improve the starting speed significantly. I think I see the problem already. Why does anyone think its a good idea to put everything in an embedded system into a container? Particularly as everything comes from a single vendor and so the usual argument about "but libraries are too hard!" doesn't apply.
I happen to know a small amount of the Tesla internals and they are using cgroups, namespaces, app armour and ebpf based syscall filtering to secure various processes on the car.
You almost certainly should not use docker or podman to manage processes on a car but that doesn't mean you shouldn't embrace the subsystems they are built on in order to increase security resilience and defense in depth.
Why would you run podman inside a vehicle's computer. Cool nonetheless.
Perhaps you want to somehow isolate different parts of the car to protect against somehting like the CAN bus attack?
I'm all for improvements to pod startup times etc, but the general idea of putting more software into cars is not that appealing. I recently broke down in the highlands of Scotland in a fairly new car with the family - it was a horrible experience. It was made worse by the fact that there was nobody close that had a clue what to do with the car. The breakdown service arrived promptly, plugged the diagnostic tool into…
That's imo a right to repair issue. We can build easily diagnosable and easily fixable hardware. Big Corps just don't
If we have a right to repair here, we also need to see how to handle liability here. If you flash your own software on the motor controller and subsequently mow through a group of people because you forgot to do a plausibility check on the accelerator pedal value who takes responsibility then?
Even if you just get the original software, how do we ensure you flash it correctly?
If you get the schematics, how do we know used the right parts that are rated for 125°C temperatures.