Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
John M. Ludden
dblp:25/3466
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 4 · 2 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Hardware security and side channels · 100% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
3 papers |
Electronic design automation · 58% Parallel and multicore computing · 23% Processor architecture and microarchitecture · 18% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Hardware security and side channels › trusted execution environments
confidential computing |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Confidential computing for OpenPOWER · EuroSys 2021 |
Hardware security and side channels
trusted execution environments |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Confidential computing for OpenPOWER · EuroSys 2021 |
Electronic design automation
hardware verification and test |
0.2 | 2 | 2014 | Verification of Transactional Memory in POWER8 · DAC 2014 Industrial experience with test generation languages for processor verification · DAC 2004 |
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
processor verification |
0.2 | 2 | 2014 | Verification of Transactional Memory in POWER8 · DAC 2014 Industrial experience with test generation languages for processor verification · DAC 2004 |
Parallel and multicore computing
transactional memory |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Verification of Transactional Memory in POWER8 · DAC 2014 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
instruction set architecture |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Confidential computing for OpenPOWER · EuroSys 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
trusted boot · 1.0secure boot · 1.0cryptography · 1.0access control · 1.0pre-silicon simulation · 0.2post-silicon validation · 0.2acceleration · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Post Silicon Validation of the MMUabstractI. Abstract Post silicon validation is a unique challenge in the design verification process. On one hand, it utilizes real silicon and is therefore able to cover a larger state-space. On the other, it suffers from debugging challenges due to a lack of observability into the design. These challenges dictate distinctive design choices, such as the simplicity of validation tools and a built-for-debugging software design methodology. The Memory Management Unit (MMU) is central to any design that uses virtual-memory, and creates complex verification challenges, especially in many-core designs. We propose a novel method for post silicon validation of the MMU that brings together previously undescribed techniques, based on several papers and patents. This method was implemented in Threadmill, a bare metal exerciser and was used in the verification of high-end industry-level POWER and ARM SoCs. It succeeded in increasing RTL coverage, hitting several hidden bugs, and saving hundreds of work-hours in the validation process. Tom Kolan, Hillel Mendelson, Vitali Sokhin, Shai Doron, Hernan Theiler, Shay Aviv, Hagai Hadad, Natalia Freidman, Elena Tsanko, John M. Ludden, Bryant Cockcroft |
DATE | 10 |
| 2021 | Confidential computing for OpenPOWERabstractThis paper presents Protected Execution Facility (PEF), a virtual machine-based Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) for confidential computing on Power ISA. PEF enables protected secure virtual machines (SVMs). Like other TEEs, PEF verifies the SVM prior to execution. PEF utilizes a Trusted Platform Module (TPM), secure boot, and trusted boot as well as newly introduced architectural changes for Power ISA systems. Exploiting these architectural changes requires new firmware, the Protected Execution Ultravisor. PEF is supported in the latest version of the POWER9 chip. PEF demonstrates that access control for isolation and cryptography for confidentiality is an effective approach to confidential computing. We particularly focus on how our design (i) balances between access control and cryptography, (ii) maximizes the use of existing security components, and (iii) simplifies the management of the SVM life cycle. Finally, we evaluate the performance of SVMs in comparison to normal virtual machines on OpenPOWER systems. Guerney D. H. Hunt, Ramachandra Pai, Michael V. Le, Hani Jamjoom, Sukadev Bhattiprolu, Rick Boivie, Laurent Dufour, Brad Frey, Mohit Kapur, Kenneth A. Goldman, Ryan Grimm, Janani Janakirman, John M. Ludden, Paul Mackerras, Cathy May, Elaine R. Palmer, Bharata Bhasker Rao, Lawrence Roy, William A. Starke, Jeffrey Stuecheli, Enriquillo Valdez, Wendel Voigt |
EuroSys | 13 |
| 2014 | Verification of Transactional Memory in POWER8abstractTransactional memory is a promising mechanism for synchronizing concurrent programs that eliminates locks at the expense of hardware complexity. Transactional memory is a hard feature to verify. First, transactions comprise several instructions that must be observed as a single global atomic operation. In addition, there are many reasons a transaction can fail. This results in a high level of non-determinism which must be tamed by the verification methodology. This paper describes the innovation that was applied to tools and methodology in pre-silicon simulation, acceleration and post-silicon in order to verify transactional memory in the IBM POWER8 processor core. Allon Adir, Dave Goodman, Daniel Hershcovich, Oz Hershkovitz, Bryan G. Hickerson, Karen Holtz, Wisam Kadry, Anatoly Koyfman, John M. Ludden, Charles Meissner, Amir Nahir, Randall R. Pratt, Mike Schiffli, Brett St. Onge, Brian W. Thompto, Elena Tsanko, Avi Ziv |
DAC | 9 |
| 2004 | Industrial experience with test generation languages for processor verificationabstractWe report on our experience with a new test generation language for processor verification. The verification of two superscalar multiprocessors is described and we show the ease of expressing complex verification tasks. The cost and benefit are demonstrated: training takes up to six months; the simulation time required for a desired level of coverage has decreased by a factor of twenty; the number of escape bugs has been reduced. Michael L. Behm, John M. Ludden, Yossi Lichtenstein, Michal Rimon, Michael Vinov |
DAC | 2 |