Expressing an opinion via the use of concrete but in-this-case-not-actually-demonstrated examples from the code is not normally considered perjury. He believed what he said was true, and had good reasons for that belief.
That doesn't mean it's the truth though. I too read through that looking for something more damning than I found:
The memory wasn't ECC and the code didn't do anything to mitigate that risk, but that doesn't prove that a memory fault occured or even tell us what the likelihood is. Toyota screwed up the stack depth analysis. But AFAICT no stack overflow condition was found. Apparently some other stuff was found (probably with a static analysis tool) on which the article doesn't elaborate.
These are bugs, and certainly don't make me feel good about the system. But they're not a specific finding of fault either.
That doesn't mean it's the truth though. I too read through that looking for something more damning than I found:
The memory wasn't ECC and the code didn't do anything to mitigate that risk, but that doesn't prove that a memory fault occured or even tell us what the likelihood is. Toyota screwed up the stack depth analysis. But AFAICT no stack overflow condition was found. Apparently some other stuff was found (probably with a static analysis tool) on which the article doesn't elaborate.
These are bugs, and certainly don't make me feel good about the system. But they're not a specific finding of fault either.