New Way to Patch Defective Hardware

brunascle writes "Researchers have devised a new way to patch hardware. By treating a computer chip more like software than hardware, Josep Torrellas, a computer science professor from the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, believes we will be able to fix defective hardware by a applying a patch, similar to the way defective software is handled. His system, dubbed Phoenix, consists of a standard semiconductor device called a field programmable gate array (FPGA). Although generally slower than their application-specific integrated circuit counterparts, FPGAs have the advantage of being able to be modified post-production. Defects found on a Phoenix-enabled chip could be resolved by downloading a patch and applying it to the hardware. Torrellas believes this would give chips a shorter time to market, saying "If they know that they could fix the problems later on, they could beat the competition to market.""

Comments

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I see what this guy is doing that is novel. I can't tell if it's a stupid writeup or if this guy really thinks sending out a new bitstream to an FPGA is a breakthrough. FPGAs are remarkable pieces of hardware, and depending on how much you're willing to spend they can run up to a few hundred megahertz- though timing problems can be difficult to resolve at that kind of speed. Many ASIC designers use FGPAs in house to prototype and can afford to spend up to $25,000 for a single chip (only the craziest number of gates cost that much) but which reduces the number of million dollar ASIC production runs. The other reason you don't see a whole lot of FPGAs in closed source hardware is because an end user/hacker could make the hardware go out of spec or do something unintended and then expect warranty support. An increasing number of open source hardware projects (Universal Software Radio Peripheral, or USRP, for one) include FPGAs however. Anyway, bottom line is I just don't see from the article at least what this guy is doing that is so special. The article makes it sound like the chip can detect the errors itself but then requires a patch to be uploaded. It sounds to me like he's adding logic that works around certain hardware states in the fixed portions of the circuit- but that's just updating the VHDL/Verilog and creating a new bitstream. So again, I don't know if it's a dumb article or a dumb researcher. Anyone have more information?

Re:what?

[AaronW]

You would be surprised how widespread FPGAs are. They are used in consumer devices to a limited extent. In high-end hardware where cost is not as much of an issue and the volume is lower FPGAs are very common. I know networking hardware has been using FPGAs for at least a decade, and most enterprise networking equipment I see has them. They are common in higher-end routers and other devices.

FPGAs also have come down significantly in cost while increasing their gate counts. A number of FPGA vendors also offer services where you can go straight from an FPGA to an ASIC at a much lower cost than a full custom ASIC design. Start looking inside consumer devices... look for chips that say Xilinx, Altera, Lattice, Actel and more. Some of these companies also make regular ASICs, but many of the parts you see are FPGAs.

FPGAs are nothing new, though it is not so common for consumer devices to be upgraded in the field as it is for higher-end devices.

Re:what?

[timster]

I think you're seriously misunderstood TFA. The idea isn't to replace the chip with an FPGA. The idea is to include a small FPGA through which various important signals are routed.

As shipped, the FPGA is just a pass-through, which does nothing. When you find out that a bug presents in a certain situation, you modify the FPGA to intercept the problem and handle it somehow.

Limited useability

[Dynedain]

Great... so I assemble a new system with "patchable" hardware... only to find that the hardware is deffective.

Now I'm left in a situation where I need software to patch the hardware. But I can't run the software because the hardware is defective...

This is just an excuse for being lazy. Do we really need more untested products flooding the market? Nothing like shifting the burden of quality control onto the end user to push up your profits...

On the other hand, this could be very useful in systems where physical access to the hardware is nigh impossibles... satellites for example. But this should not be used in consumer devices, and shouldn't be a crutch for faster development.

If I'm missing something...

[user24]

If I'm missing something, then I'm sure a lot of other people are too, so please explain:

exactly what is stopping malware2.0 from killing my processor?