Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userLinearizability with Ownership Transfer
110
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Hongseok Yang
Publication date
2013
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Alexey Gotsman
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Linearizability is a commonly accepted notion of correctness for libraries of concurrent algorithms. Unfortunately, it assumes a complete isolation between a library and its client, with interactions limited to passing values of a given data type. This is inappropriate for common programming languages, where libraries and their clients can communicate via the heap, transferring the ownership of data structures, and can even run in a shared address space without any memory protection. In this paper, we present the first definition of linearizability that lifts this limitation and establish an Abstraction Theorem: while proving a property of a client of a concurrent library, we can soundly replace the library by its abstract implementation related to the original one by our generalisation of linearizability. This allows abstracting from the details of the library implementation while reasoning about the client. We also prove that linearizability with ownership transfer can be derived from the classical one if the library does not access some of data structures transferred to it by the client.
rate research
Read More
In process algebras such as ACP (Algebra of Communicating Processes), parallel processes are considered to be interleaved in an arbitrary way. In the case of multi-threading as found in contemporary programming languages, parallel processes are actually interleaved according to some interleaving strategy. An interleaving strategy is what is called a process-scheduling policy in the field of operating systems. In many systems, for instance hardware/software systems, we have to do with both parallel processes that may best be considered to be interleaved in an arbitrary way and parallel processes that may best be considered to be interleaved according to some interleaving strategy. Therefore, we extend ACP in this paper with the latter form of interleaving. The established properties of the extension concerned include an elimination property, a conservative extension property, and a unique expansion property.
There exists a rich literature of rule formats guaranteeing different algebraic properties for formalisms with a Structural Operational Semantics. Moreover, there exist a few approaches for automatically deriving axiomatizations characterizing strong bisimilarity of processes. To our knowledge, this literature has never been extended to the setting with data (e.g. to model storage and memory). We show how the rule formats for algebraic properties can be exploited in a generic manner in the setting with data. Moreover, we introduce a new approach for deriving sound and ground-complete axiom schemata for a notion of bisimilarity with data, called stateless bisimilarity, based on intuitive auxiliary function symbols for handling the store component. We do restrict, however, the axiomatization to the setting where the store component is only given in terms of constants.
In this paper we show that property-based abstraction, an established technique originating in software model checking, is a flexible method of controlling polyvariance in program specialisation in a standard online specialisation algorithm. Specialisation is a program transformation that transforms a program with respect to given constraints that restrict its behaviour. Polyvariant specialisation refers to the generation of two or more specialis
We present guarded dependent type theory, gDTT, an extensional dependent type theory with a `later modality and clock quantifiers for programming and proving with guarded recursive and coinductive types. The later modality is used to ensure the productivity of recursive definitions in a modular, type based, way. Clock quantifiers are used for controlled elimination of the later modality and for encoding coinductive types using guarded recursive types. Key to the development of gDTT are novel type and term formers involving what we call `delayed substitutions. These generalise the applicative functor rules for the later modality considered in earlier work, and are crucial for programming and proving with dependent types. We show soundness of the type theory with respect to a denotational model.
Identifying the cause of a proof failure during deductive verification of programs is hard: it may be due to an incorrectness in the program, an incompleteness in the program annotations, or an incompleteness of the prover. The changes needed to resolve a proof failure depend on its category, but the prover cannot provide any help on the categorisation. When using an SMT solver to discharge a proof obligation, that solver can propose a model from a failed attempt, from which a possible counterexample can be derived. But the counterexample may be invalid, in which case it may add more confusion than help. To check the validity of a counterexample and to categorise the proof failure, we propose the comparison between the run-time assertion-checking (RAC) executions under two different semantics, using the counterexample as an oracle. The first RAC execution follows the normal program semantics, and a violation of a program annotation indicates an incorrectness in the program. The second RAC execution follows a novel giant-step semantics that does not execute loops nor function calls but instead retrieves return values and values of modified variables from the oracle. A violation of the program annotations only observed under giant-step execution characterises an incompleteness of the program annotations. We implemented this approach in the Why3 platform for deductive program verification and evaluated it using examples from prior literature.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
