:: Re: [DNG] Nasty Linux systemd secur…
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Simon Hobson
Date:  
To: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] Nasty Linux systemd security bug revealed
Andreas Messer <andi@???> wrote:

> Once we had a crash in
> simple limit switch device. As a result the high-rack robot pushed a
> pallet in 15m height out of the rack. Fortunately, it was just another
> robot which was destroyed (stood just below) - not a human being. Still
> a very expensive case for the company. So I'm used implement a lot of
> checks :-). (Actually we even don't use heap allocation after booting
> the firmware)


Back in the 90s I had an acquaintance that did a lot of consulting for sites with "management issues" and running "big iron". He got a jolly to see a site that was run by systems from that vendor - the very early days of warehouse automation. High bar warehousing, automated forklifts, with operators riding along to move boxes between pallet on the forks and pallet on the racks - it was a highly seasonal business, and in the run up to Christmas they be getting order in in all sorts of quantities, putting a small box on a pallet is highly inefficient so the need for manual handling to combine multiple shipments onto one pallet on the racks.
Apparently the average stay before the operators quit from the stress was only 3 months !
Then one day a forklift went wrong - fortunately with no operator on board. It accelerated in an uncontrolled manner until it crashed through the side of the building and fell over in the field next door - at which point, all the operators walked out !


g4sra via Dng <dng@???> wrote:

> There is nothing stopping *me* for applying for systems programming work in Nuclear Power Stations, Air Traffic Control, Industrial Robotics, etc...



Yes, but if you look a little deeper, in that sort of industry the programmers don't get to "just get on with it". The higher the risk, the higher the degree of risk management. By the time the programmer gets to write code, there's been a lot of safety based design - and when they've written the code, there's a lot of testing and assurance before it can go live.
Of course, if you are Boeing and designing systems for aircraft - then it seems it's a different matter !

Simon