A Graph-Based Semantics Workbench for Concurrent Asynchronous Programs

A number of novel programming languages and libraries have been proposed that offer simpler-to-use models of concurrency than threads. It is challenging, however, to devise execution models that successfully realise their abstractions without forfeiting performance or introducing unintended behaviours. This is exemplified by SCOOP---a concurrent object-oriented message-passing language---which has seen multiple semantics proposed and implemented over its evolution. We propose a "semantics workbench" with fully and semi-automatic tools for SCOOP, that can be used to analyse and compare programs with respect to different execution models. We demonstrate its use in checking the consistency of semantics by applying it to a set of representative programs, and highlighting a deadlock-related discrepancy between the principal execution models of the language. Our workbench is based on a modular and parameterisable graph transformation semantics implemented in the GROOVE tool. We discuss how graph transformations are leveraged to atomically model intricate language abstractions, and how the visual yet algebraic nature of the model can be used to ascertain soundness.Comment: Accepted for publication in the proceedings of FASE 2016 (to appear

Incremental Consistency Guarantees for Replicated Objects

Programming with replicated objects is difficult. Developers must face the fundamental trade-off between consistency and performance head on, while struggling with the complexity of distributed storage stacks. We introduce Correctables, a novel abstraction that hides most of this complexity, allowing developers to focus on the task of balancing consistency and performance. To aid developers with this task, Correctables provide incremental consistency guarantees, which capture successive refinements on the result of an ongoing operation on a replicated object. In short, applications receive both a preliminary---fast, possibly inconsistent---result, as well as a final---consistent---result that arrives later. We show how to leverage incremental consistency guarantees by speculating on preliminary values, trading throughput and bandwidth for improved latency. We experiment with two popular storage systems (Cassandra and ZooKeeper) and three applications: a Twissandra-based microblogging service, an ad serving system, and a ticket selling system. Our evaluation on the Amazon EC2 platform with YCSB workloads A, B, and C shows that we can reduce the latency of strongly consistent operations by up to 40% (from 100ms to 60ms) at little cost (10% bandwidth increase, 6% throughput drop) in the ad system. Even if the preliminary result is frequently inconsistent (25% of accesses), incremental consistency incurs a bandwidth overhead of only 27%.Comment: 16 total pages, 12 figures. OSDI'16 (to appear

Can Component/Service-Based Systems Be Proved Correct?

Component-oriented and service-oriented approaches have gained a strong enthusiasm in industries and academia with a particular interest for service-oriented approaches. A component is a software entity with given functionalities, made available by a provider, and used to build other application within which it is integrated. The service concept and its use in web-based application development have a huge impact on reuse practices. Accordingly a considerable part of software architectures is influenced; these architectures are moving towards service-oriented architectures. Therefore applications (re)use services that are available elsewhere and many applications interact, without knowing each other, using services available via service servers and their published interfaces and functionalities. Industries propose, through various consortium, languages, technologies and standards. More academic works are also undertaken concerning semantics and formalisation of components and service-based systems. We consider here both streams of works in order to raise research concerns that will help in building quality software. Are there new challenging problems with respect to service-based software construction? Besides, what are the links and the advances compared to distributed systems?Comment: 16 page

IST Austria Thesis

Designing and verifying concurrent programs is a notoriously challenging, time consuming, and error prone task, even for experts. This is due to the sheer number of possible interleavings of a concurrent program, all of which have to be tracked and accounted for in a formal proof. Inventing an inductive invariant that captures all interleavings of a low-level implementation is theoretically possible, but practically intractable. We develop a refinement-based verification framework that provides mechanisms to simplify proof construction by decomposing the verification task into smaller subtasks. In a first line of work, we present a foundation for refinement reasoning over structured concurrent programs. We introduce layered concurrent programs as a compact notation to represent multi-layer refinement proofs. A layered concurrent program specifies a sequence of connected concurrent programs, from most concrete to most abstract, such that common parts of different programs are written exactly once. Each program in this sequence is expressed as structured concurrent program, i.e., a program over (potentially recursive) procedures, imperative control flow, gated atomic actions, structured parallelism, and asynchronous concurrency. This is in contrast to existing refinement-based verifiers, which represent concurrent systems as flat transition relations. We present a powerful refinement proof rule that decomposes refinement checking over structured programs into modular verification conditions. Refinement checking is supported by a new form of modular, parameterized invariants, called yield invariants, and a linear permission system to enhance local reasoning. In a second line of work, we present two new reduction-based program transformations that target asynchronous programs. These transformations reduce the number of interleavings that need to be considered, thus reducing the complexity of invariants. Synchronization simplifies the verification of asynchronous programs by introducing the fiction, for proof purposes, that asynchronous operations complete synchronously. Synchronization summarizes an asynchronous computation as immediate atomic effect. Inductive sequentialization establishes sequential reductions that captures every behavior of the original program up to reordering of coarse-grained commutative actions. A sequential reduction of a concurrent program is easy to reason about since it corresponds to a simple execution of the program in an idealized synchronous environment, where processes act in a fixed order and at the same speed. Our approach is implemented the CIVL verifier, which has been successfully used for the verification of several complex concurrent programs. In our methodology, the overall correctness of a program is established piecemeal by focusing on the invariant required for each refinement step separately. While the programmer does the creative work of specifying the chain of programs and the inductive invariant justifying each link in the chain, the tool automatically constructs the verification conditions underlying each refinement step

Witness generation in existential CTL model checking

Hardware and software systems are widely used in applications where failure is prohibitively costly or even unacceptable. The main obstacle to make such systems more reliable and capable of more complex and sensitive tasks is our limited ability to design and implement them with sufficiently high degree of confidence in their correctness under all circumstances. As an automated technique that verifies the system early in the design phase, model checking explores the state space of the system exhaustively and rigorously to determine if the system satisfies the specifications and detect fatal errors that may be missed by simulation and testing. One essential advantage of model checking is the capability to generate witnesses and counterexamples. They are simple and straightforward forms to prove an existential specification or falsify a universal specification. Beside enhancing the credibility of the model checker\u27s conclusion, they either strengthen engineers\u27 confidence in the system or provide hints to reveal potential defects. In this dissertation, we focus on symbolic model checking with specifications expressed in computation tree logic (CTL), which describes branching-time behaviors of the system, and investigate the witness generation techniques for the existential fragment of CTL, i.e., ECTL, covering both decision-diagram-based and SAT-based. Since witnesses provide important debugging information and may be inspected by engineers, smaller ones are always preferable to ease their interpretation and understanding. To the best of our knowledge, no existing witness generation technique guarantees the minimality for a general ECTL formula with nested existential CTL operators. One contribution of this dissertation is to fill this gap with the minimality guarantee. With the help of the saturation algorithm, our approach computes the minimum witness size for the given ECTL formula in every state, stored as an additive edge-valued multiway decision diagrams (EV+MDD), a variant of the well-known binary decision diagram (BDD), and then builds a minimum witness. Though computationally intensive, this has promising applications in reducing engineers\u27 workload. SAT-based model checking, in particular, bounded model checking, reduces a model checking problem problem into a satisfiability problem and leverages a SAT solver to solve it. Another contribution of this dissertation is to improve the translation of bounded semantics of ECTL into propositional formulas. By realizing the possibility of path reuse, i.e., a state may build its own witness by reusing its successor\u27s, we may generate a significantly smaller formula, which is often easier for a SAT solver to answer, and thus boost the performance of bounded model checking