LOGIN   :::   RECOVER PASS   :::   GET ACCOUNT    
Browse
  • Projects
  • Code (CVS)
  • Forums
  • News
  • Articles
  • Polls
  •  
    OpenCores
  • FAQ
  • CVS HowTo
  • Mission
  • Media
  • Tools
  • Advertise
  • Mirrors
  • Logos
  • Contact us
  • Job Opportunity
  •  
    Tools
  • Search
      
  • Download Cores (CVSGet)
  •  
    More
  • Wishbone
  • Perlilog
  • EDA tools
  • OpenTech CD
  •  
    Navigation: All forums > Cores > Message List > Message Post

    Message

    Reply | Reply all
    Date Prev | Date Next | Thread Prev | Thread Next Date Index | Thread Index

    From: Joachim Strömbergson<Joachim.Strombergson@I...>
    Date: Fri Aug 27 09:23:09 CEST 2004
    Subject: [oc] Routing allocation leakage in FPGA makros?
    Top
    Aloha!

    (This is slightly off topic, but TGIF, right? ,-)

    While digressing the interesting article about the rapidly rising number of
    hard macros in SoCs that is available on EE Times I couldn't help but trying
    to think of the implications for FPGAs:

    http://www.eedesign.com/features/exclusive/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=26807055

    In FPGAs, the true hard macros (apart from the CLB/Slices/LEs whatever you
    call them) are the memories. But on top of the FPGA architecture we then map
    an increasing number of "hard" macros in the form of pre built blocks with
    internal P&R. Things like the Xilinx MicroBlaze and the Altera Nios processors.

    Now, we can to quite a high level degree control where they are being placed.
    But, what I'm unsure of is to what degree the routing used inside the macro is
    confined to the block footprint, or if there is a dead zone around the blocks
    where the allocated routing resources reach [1]. To give an example: If a
    macro uses a comm resource that covers half a chip length, but occupies much
    less than that, other routing would still be affected by the macro, since the
    parts of the routing for that half of the chip would be allocated by the macro.

    My venture is then that as we increase the number of these macros, and even
    create them ourselves, the problem seen in the paper for normal standard cell
    (SC) ASICs would not only spill over to the FPGA world, but also be
    exacerbated by the fixed routing of the FPGA *and* the leakage effect by the
    macros. I.e. in this case, the well defined, pre qualified world of FPGAs
    which makes them easy to use and work with actually makes this problem worse.
    No? Am I totally out in the grand forest?

    Side note: If there actually exsist a leakage effect in (at least some)
    macros, wouldn't that mean that one could concieve to attach logic to the
    routing "sticking out" of the core, thereby probe the internals of the macro?
    Could this be a problem for security sensitive applications?

    Consider for example that an evil empi^D^D^D^D company in the northwestern
    region of the U.S. licenses out a Digital Rights Management core [2] required
    (and by regulation mandatory) for DVD playback. The core is treated as a real
    hard core, that is a black box and the internals are off limits for anyone
    besides big media executives and people employed by publicly funded orgs that,
    at least on paper don'r exist [3].

    Now would it at all be possible for say, a young and inventive fellow from
    Norway, to create some logic that attaches to the "leakage routing" analyze
    the DRM-system, perhaps be able to extrect parts of (for example) round keys,
    internal states etc and possibly come up with a way to defeat the system.
    Possibly even print the solution as Perl code on a T-shirt?

    This example is highly contrieved, but it hopefully illustrates that core
    developers might wan't to protect the internals, and some users of the core
    might be interested in finding out what goes on internally.

    Thought and comments appreciated



    Notes
    ------
    [1] The footprint could be defined to the area where the routing/communication
    resources allocated reaches, in which case at least the leakage problem would
    by definition not exist.

    [2] I just realised that I use the word "core", when previously using "macro".
    I normally talk about "macros", "cores", "IP-cores" more or less
    interchangably and add "soft", "firm", "hard" to distiguish if they are RTL,
    netlist (EDIF) and really hard cores.

    [3] I know, this scenario is totally fictious and full of paranoia and
    speculation. Things like these never happen in the real world, right? ;-)
    --
    Med vänlig hälsning, Yours

    Joachim Strömbergson - Alltid i harmonisk svängning.
    VP, Research & Development
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    InformAsic AB / Hugo Grauers gata 5B / SE-411 33 GÖTEBORG / Sweden
    Tel: +46 31 68 54 90 Fax: +46 31 68 54 91 Mobile: +46 733 75 97 02
    E-mail: joachim.strombergson@i... Home: www.informasic.com
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------



    Follow upAuthor
    [oc] Routing allocation leakage in FPGA makros?Rudolf Usselmann

     
    Copyright (c) 1999 OPENCORES.ORG. All rights reserved.