I don't see how an open processor would any better than a closed one.
Today we can't know or analyse the security properties of the silicon that essentially runs the entire world. We simply have to trust the producers, and they have been proven to be unreliable at best. They compete on performance and features, and the result is not that different from when there were no safety regulations (and testing) for cars, except that so far bad processor security haven't killed as many people as far as we know.
Open IP is one way to help making sure the above stays true. There are certainly other avenues, but for security it seems to be the case that it's best handled in the open.
This whole debate feels eerily similar to the emergence of open source software into the public eye, back in the 90s.
Which given the CVE entries per day isn't necessarily true, in spite of pull requests being reviewed.
But it does make possible a bunch of superior workflows that are impossible with proprietary software, and makes certain types of failure common to propriety software much harder.
Could you provide an example?
Also, I hope you're not posting that from an Intel machine ;)
I mean, I reasonably trust AMD here. I don't see any reason why they'd lie about it. Plus, everyone in AMD seems super-confident that they're immune to the Meltdown issue due to how they implement speculative cache loads.
But such analysis is purely within AMD's circle of engineers. None of us outside of AMD can verify their claims.
The FAA and its set of safety regulations are written into US law. That's why airplanes are trustworthy and safe: more safe than other countries on the average.
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/a...
Or do you think the US just MAGICALLY gets high safety results through sheer determination? There are systems in place, and I think it is reasonable to suggest that we should start building a system for computer-chip processors.
Open Source is one possible proposal. I'm not sure what other proposals exist to ensure that the internals of chips aren't compromised.
Building a bridge is one of the most heavily regulated things in the USA.
For details, see: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis.cfm
Every single bridge in the USA is documented, listed, inspected and regulated. There's even an entire division of the US Military that helps out: The Army Corps of Engineers. So its multi-agency, multi-department, and even includes military service members.
Bridge Building might be the only thing more regulated than Airline safety in this country.
> because mechanical engineers design them to be safe.
Civil Engineer btw. Not Mechanical. And Civil Engineers need to pass a strict level of training and licensing to practice in the USA. Granted, this is on a State-by-State basis rather that on a national basis (like Bridge-building).
But its still a government regulation, even if its State-wide instead of Federal.
https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/how-get-licensed
All 50 states require 4-years of work experience before you earn the title of "Professional Engineer". And that's the title you need before you can lead something like a Bridge-building project.
Not only are bridges highly regulated, but the people who are allowed to build bridges are highly regulated, at both the State and Federal levels.
----------
Now I'm not saying we enforce the highest regulation standards upon our CPU manufacturers. I'm basically saying "Stop coming up with bad examples". The incredibly safe examples you have brought up so far (Airline safety and Bridge Building) are the result of years of Government regulation and laws.