S-SETA: Selective Software-Only Error-Detection Technique Using Assertions

Chielle, Eduardo Ottobelli; Rodrigues, Gennaro S.; Kastensmidt, Fernanda Lima; Cuenca-Asensi, Sergio; Tambara, Lucas Antunes; Rech, Paolo; Quinn, Heather

doi:10.1109/tns.2015.2484842

Cited by 32 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(1) Software CFC techniques [2,3,8,9,15,28,[39][40][41] generally detect deviation in control flow by modification of the program by compilers or binary translators to insert signatures for each basic block in the program to represent the program's control flow, and by comparing these signatures with the signatures generated at runtime. For example, CFCSS [28] inserts a few instructions at the beginning of each basic block to set the outgoing signature (identifying the basic block in the program), and check the incoming signature register in the successor basic blocks to ensure the correctness of execution flow.…”

Section: Control Flow Errors and Control Flow Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, as shown in Figure 1, CFCSS adds some instructions to assign a variable to a unique value (signature) in each basic block, and also adds instructions in each basic block to check if the control flow is coming from a correct predecessor basic block. Several control flow based soft error protection techniques were developed over the last few decades and span across design layers from hardware [11, 23-25, 31, 32], software [2,3,9,15,28,39,40], and hardware-software hybrid techniques [4,10,12,[34][35][36]42].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Control Flow Checking or Not? (for Soft Errors)

Rhisheekesan

Jeyapaul

Shrivastava

2019

ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Huge leaps in performance and power improvements of computing systems are driven by rapid technology scaling, but technology scaling has also rendered computing systems susceptible to soft errors. Among the soft error protection techniques, Control Flow Checking (CFC) based techniques have gained a reputation of being lightweight yet effective. The main idea behind CFCs is to check if the program is executing the instructions in the right order. In order to validate the protection claims of existing CFCs, we develop a systematic and quantitative method to evaluate the protection achieved by CFCs using the metric of vulnerability. Our quantitative analysis indicates that existing CFC techniques are not only ineffective in providing protection from soft faults, but incur additional performance and power overheads. Our results show that software-only CFC protection schemes increase system vulnerability by 18%-21% with 17%-38% performance overhead and hybrid CFC protection increases vulnerability by 5%. Although the vulnerability remains almost the same for hardware-only CFC protection, they incur overheads of design cost, area, and power due to the hardware modifications required for their implementations. CCS Concepts: • Computer systems organization → Reliability; • Software and its engineering → Data flow architectures; Control structures;

show abstract

Section: Control Flow Errors and Control Flow Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Control Flow Checking or Not? (for Soft Errors)

Rhisheekesan

Jeyapaul

Shrivastava

2019

ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One way to selectively apply CFE detection, is to simply ignore some basic blocks. This approach is taken by the S-SETA technique [5]. Within S-SETA, smaller basic blocks have no extra instructions inserted in order to reduce the imposed execution time overhead.…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The imposed execution time overhead, however, is still relatively high. Therefore, research has focused on selective CFE detection techniques [5,9]. Selective CFE detection techniques only protect a selected part of the target program to reduce the imposed execution time overhead.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Approach to Selectively Implement Control Flow Error Detection Techniques

Vankeirsbilck

Waes

Hallez

et al. 2019

Advances on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many software-implemented control flow error detection techniques have been proposed over the years. In an effort to reduce their overhead, recent research has focused on selective approaches. However, correctly applying these approaches can be difficult. This paper aims to address this concern and proposes a new approach. Our new approach is easier to implement and is applicable on any existing control flow error detection technique. To prove its validity, we apply our new approach to the Random Additive Control Flow Error Detection technique and perform fault injection experiments. The results show that the selective implementation has approximately the same error detection ratio with a decrease in execution time overhead.

show abstract

“…Recent approaches propose the partial or selective application of hardening techniques to overcome those drawbacks [5]. These are also known as selective-SIHFT in the case of the software-based ones [6,7]. The general approach consists of protecting only a selected subset of elements (e.g., processor registers, basic blocks of instructions, among others) to achieve significant reductions in overheads with minimal impact on the system's reliability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SHARC: An efficient metric for selective protection of software against soft errors

Isaza-Gonzalez

Restrepo-Calle

Martínez-Álvarez

et al. 2018

Microelectronics Reliability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a metric for the efficient application of selective hardening using software based techniques against soft-errors. It offers a method for selecting the resources to be protected obtaining maximum fault coverage with the minimum overhead. Common approaches are based on exhaustive exploration of the solution space or time-consuming fault injection campaigns. Contrarily, our Software based HARdening Criticality metric (SHARC) relies on early estimations of the impact that protection techniques will have on the global reliability of the application. SHARC estimations are based on features extracted from the dynamic analysis of source code, and produce a prioritization of the resources involved accordingly. For assessing our approach two case studies were carried out using low-cost embedded microprocessors. Results were compared to traditional approaches like brute-force exploration and the Architectural Vulnerability Factor (AVF) metric. Experiments show that SHARC improves the results between 5% and 21% at a fraction of the effort.

show abstract

S-SETA: Selective Software-Only Error-Detection Technique Using Assertions

Cited by 32 publications

References 22 publications

Control Flow Checking or Not? (for Soft Errors)

Control Flow Checking or Not? (for Soft Errors)

A New Approach to Selectively Implement Control Flow Error Detection Techniques

SHARC: An efficient metric for selective protection of software against soft errors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About