Hoare-style Specifications as Correctness Conditions for Non-linearizable Concurrent Objects

Designing scalable concurrent objects, which can be efficiently used on multicore processors, often requires one to abandon standard specification techniques, such as linearizability, in favor of more relaxed consistency requirements. However, the variety of alternative correctness conditions makes it difficult to choose which one to employ in a particular case, and to compose them when using objects whose behaviors are specified via different criteria. The lack of syntactic verification methods for most of these criteria poses challenges in their systematic adoption and application. In this paper, we argue for using Hoare-style program logics as an alternative and uniform approach for specification and compositional formal verification of safety properties for concurrent objects and their client programs. Through a series of case studies, we demonstrate how an existing program logic for concurrency can be employed off-the-shelf to capture important state and history invariants, allowing one to explicitly quantify over interference of environment threads and provide intuitive and expressive Hoare-style specifications for several non-linearizable concurrent objects that were previously specified only via dedicated correctness criteria. We illustrate the adequacy of our specifications by verifying a number of concurrent client scenarios, that make use of the previously specified concurrent objects, capturing the essence of such correctness conditions as concurrency-aware linearizability, quiescent, and quantitative quiescent consistency. All examples described in this paper are verified mechanically in Coq.Comment: 18 page

Concurrent Data Structures Linked in Time

Arguments about correctness of a concurrent data structure are typically carried out by using the notion of linearizability and specifying the linearization points of the data structure's procedures. Such arguments are often cumbersome as the linearization points' position in time can be dynamic (depend on the interference, run-time values and events from the past, or even future), non-local (appear in procedures other than the one considered), and whose position in the execution trace may only be determined after the considered procedure has already terminated. In this paper we propose a new method, based on a separation-style logic, for reasoning about concurrent objects with such linearization points. We embrace the dynamic nature of linearization points, and encode it as part of the data structure's auxiliary state, so that it can be dynamically modified in place by auxiliary code, as needed when some appropriate run-time event occurs. We name the idea linking-in-time, because it reduces temporal reasoning to spatial reasoning. For example, modifying a temporal position of a linearization point can be modeled similarly to a pointer update in separation logic. Furthermore, the auxiliary state provides a convenient way to concisely express the properties essential for reasoning about clients of such concurrent objects. We illustrate the method by verifying (mechanically in Coq) an intricate optimal snapshot algorithm due to Jayanti, as well as some clients

A Concurrent Perspective on Smart Contracts

In this paper, we explore remarkable similarities between multi-transactional behaviors of smart contracts in cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum and classical problems of shared-memory concurrency. We examine two real-world examples from the Ethereum blockchain and analyzing how they are vulnerable to bugs that are closely reminiscent to those that often occur in traditional concurrent programs. We then elaborate on the relation between observable contract behaviors and well-studied concurrency topics, such as atomicity, interference, synchronization, and resource ownership. The described contracts-as-concurrent-objects analogy provides deeper understanding of potential threats for smart contracts, indicate better engineering practices, and enable applications of existing state-of-the-art formal verification techniques.Comment: 15 page

Brief Announcement: On the Impossibility of Detecting Concurrency

We identify a general principle of distributed computing: one cannot force two processes running in parallel to see each other. This principle is formally stated in the context of asynchronous processes communicating through shared objects, using trace-based semantics. We prove that it holds in a reasonable computational model, and then study the class of concurrent specifications which satisfy this property. This allows us to derive a Galois connection theorem for different variants of linearizability

C4: Verified Transactional Objects

A framework for Verified Transactional Objects in Coq. - Formalization of concurrent objects, linearizability, strict serializability, and associated proof techniques. - Verified linearizable concurrent hash map - Verified strictly serializable TML - Verified strictly serializable transaction-predicated ma

Admit your weakness: Verifying correctness on TSO architectures

“The final publication is available at http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-15317-9_22 ”.Linearizability has become the standard correctness criterion for fine-grained non-atomic concurrent algorithms, however, most approaches assume a sequentially consistent memory model, which is not always realised in practice. In this paper we study the correctness of concurrent algorithms on a weak memory model: the TSO (Total Store Order) memory model, which is commonly implemented by multicore architectures. Here, linearizability is often too strict, and hence, we prove a weaker criterion, quiescent consistency instead. Like linearizability, quiescent consistency is compositional making it an ideal correctness criterion in a component-based context. We demonstrate how to model a typical concurrent algorithm, seqlock, and prove it quiescent consistent using a simulation-based approach. Previous approaches to proving correctness on TSO architectures have been based on linearizabilty which makes it necessary to modify the algorithm’s high-level requirements. Our approach is the first, to our knowledge, for proving correctness without the need for such a modification

Programming Language Abstractions for Modularly Verified Distributed Systems

Distributed systems are rarely developed as monolithic programs. Instead, like any software, these systems may consist of multiple program components, which are then compiled separately and linked together. Modern systems also incorporate various services interacting with each other and with client applications. However, state-of-the-art verification tools focus predominantly on verifying standalone, closed-world protocols or systems, thus failing to account for the compositional nature of distributed systems. For example, standalone verification has the drawback that when protocols and their optimized implementations evolve, one must re-verify the entire system from scratch, instead of leveraging compositionality to contain the reverification effort. In this paper, we focus on the challenge of modular verification of distributed systems with respect to high-level protocol invariants as well as for low-level implementation safety properties. We argue that the missing link between the two is a programming paradigm that would allow one to reason about both high-level distributed protocols and low-level implementation primitives in a single verification-friendly framework. Such a link would make it possible to reap the benefits from both the vast body of research in distributed computing, focused on modular protocol decomposition and consistency properties, as well as from the recent advances in program verification, enabling construction of provably correct systems implementations. To showcase the modular verification challenges, we present some typical scenarios of decomposition between a distributed protocol and its implementations. We then describe our ongoing research agenda, in which we are attempting to address the outlined problems by providing a typing discipline and a set of domain-specific primitives for specifying, implementing and verifying distributed systems. Our approach, mechanized within a proof assistant, provides the means of decomposition necessary for modular proofs about distributed protocols and systems