Hyperproperty-Preserving Register Specifications

Authors Yoav Ben Shimon , Ori Lahav , Sharon Shoham



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.DISC.2024.8.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.85 MB
  • 19 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Yoav Ben Shimon
  • Tel Aviv University, Israel
Ori Lahav
  • Tel Aviv University, Israel
Sharon Shoham
  • Tel Aviv University, Israel

Cite AsGet BibTex

Yoav Ben Shimon, Ori Lahav, and Sharon Shoham. Hyperproperty-Preserving Register Specifications. In 38th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 319, pp. 8:1-8:19, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2024.8

Abstract

Reasoning about hyperproperties of concurrent implementations, such as the guarantees these implementations provide to randomized client programs, has been a long-standing challenge. Standard linearizability enables the use of atomic specifications for reasoning about standard properties, but not about hyperproperties. A stronger correctness criterion, called strong linearizability, enables such reasoning, but is rarely achievable, leaving various useful implementations with no means for reasoning about their hyperproperties. In this paper, we focus on registers and devise non-atomic specifications that capture a wide-range of well-studied register implementations and enable reasoning about their hyperproperties. First, we consider the class of write strong-linearizable implementations, a recently proposed useful weakening of strong linearizability, which allows more implementations, such as the well-studied single-writer ABD distributed implementation. We introduce a simple shared-memory register specification that can be used for reasoning about hyperproperties of programs that use write strongly-linearizable implementations. Second, we introduce a new linearizability class, which we call decisive linearizability, that is weaker than write strong-linearizability and includes multi-writer ABD, and develop a second shared-memory register specification for reasoning about hyperproperties of programs that use register implementations of this class. These results shed light on the hyperproperties guaranteed when simulating shared memory in a crash-resilient message-passing system.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Concurrency
  • Theory of computation → Program specifications
  • Theory of computation → Distributed algorithms
  • Theory of computation → Concurrent algorithms
Keywords
  • Hyperproperties
  • Concurrent objects
  • Distributed objects
  • Linearizability
  • Strong linearizability
  • Simulation

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Yehuda Afek, Hagit Attiya, Danny Dolev, Eli Gafni, Michael Merritt, and Nir Shavit. Atomic snapshots of shared memory. J. ACM, 40(4):873-890, 1993. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/153724.153741.
  2. Hagit Attiya, Amotz Bar-Noy, and Danny Dolev. Sharing memory robustly in message-passing systems. J. ACM, 42(1):124-142, 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/200836.200869.
  3. Hagit Attiya and Constantin Enea. Putting strong linearizability in context: Preserving hyperproperties in programs that use concurrent objects. In DISC, volume 146 of LIPIcs, pages 2:1-2:17, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2019. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2019.2.
  4. Hagit Attiya and Constantin Enea. Putting strong linearizability in context: Preserving hyperproperties in programs that use concurrent objects. CoRR, abs/1905.12063, 2019. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.12063.
  5. Hagit Attiya, Constantin Enea, and Jennifer L. Welch. Impossibility of strongly-linearizable message-passing objects via simulation by single-writer registers. In DISC, volume 209 of LIPIcs, pages 7:1-7:18. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.DISC.2021.7.
  6. Hagit Attiya, Constantin Enea, and Jennifer L. Welch. Blunting an adversary against randomized concurrent programs with linearizable implementations. In PODC, pages 209-219. ACM, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3519270.3538446.
  7. Ahmed Bouajjani, Michael Emmi, Constantin Enea, and Suha Orhun Mutluergil. Proving linearizability using forward simulations. In CAV, volume 10427 of LNCS, pages 542-563. Springer, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63390-9_28.
  8. David Yu Cheng Chan, Vassos Hadzilacos, Xing Hu, and Sam Toueg. An impossibility result on strong linearizability in message-passing systems. CoRR, abs/2108.01651, 2021. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.01651.
  9. Michael R. Clarkson and Fred B. Schneider. Hyperproperties. J. Comput. Secur., 18(6):1157-1210, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/JCS-2009-0393.
  10. John Derrick, Simon Doherty, Brijesh Dongol, Gerhard Schellhorn, and Heike Wehrheim. Brief announcement: On strong observational refinement and forward simulation. In DISC, volume 209 of LIPIcs, pages 55:1-55:4. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.DISC.2021.55.
  11. Mike Dodds, Andreas Haas, and Christoph M. Kirsch. A scalable, correct time-stamped stack. In POPL, pages 233-246. ACM, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2676726.2676963.
  12. Brijesh Dongol, Gerhard Schellhorn, and Heike Wehrheim. Weak progressive forward simulation is necessary and sufficient for strong observational refinement. In CONCUR, volume 243 of LIPIcs, pages 31:1-31:23. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.CONCUR.2022.31.
  13. Ivana Filipović, Peter O’Hearn, Noam Rinetzky, and Hongseok Yang. Abstraction for concurrent objects. Theoretical Computer Science, 411(51):4379-4398, 2010. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397510005001, URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TCS.2010.09.021.
  14. Wojciech Golab, Lisa Higham, and Philipp Woelfel. Linearizable implementations do not suffice for randomized distributed computation. In STOC, pages 373-382, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1993636.1993687.
  15. Vassos Hadzilacos, Xing Hu, and Sam Toueg. On register linearizability and termination. In PODC, pages 521-531. ACM, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3465084.3467925.
  16. Maryam Helmi, Lisa Higham, and Philipp Woelfel. Strongly linearizable implementations: possibilities and impossibilities. In PODC, pages 385-394. ACM, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2332432.2332508.
  17. Maurice P. Herlihy and Jeannette M. Wing. Linearizability: A correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 12(3):463-492, July 1990. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/78969.78972.
  18. Prasad Jayanti, Siddhartha Jayanti, Ugur Yavuz, and Lizzie Hernandez. A universal, sound, and complete forward reasoning technique for machine-verified proofs of linearizability. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 8(POPL), January 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3632924.
  19. Nancy A. Lynch and Alexander A. Shvartsman. Robust emulation of shared memory using dynamic quorum-acknowledged broadcasts. In FTCS, pages 272-281. IEEE Computer Society, 1997. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/FTCS.1997.614100.
  20. Gal Sela, Maurice Herlihy, and Erez Petrank. Brief announcement: Linearizability: A typo. In PODC, pages 561-564, New York, NY, USA, 2021. ACM. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3465084.3467944.
  21. Yoav Ben Shimon, Ori Lahav, and Sharon Shoham. Hyperproperty-preserving register specifications (extended version), 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.11015.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail