Safe Composition of Distributed Programs Communicating over Order-Preserving Imperfect Channels

  • Kai Engelhardt
  • Yoram Moses
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3741)

Abstract

The fundamental question considered in this paper is when program Q, if executed immediately after program P, is guaranteed not to interfere with P and be safe from interference by P. If a message sent by one of these programs is received by the other, it may affect and modify the other’s execution. The notion of communication closed layers (CCLs) introduced by Elrad and Francez in 1982 is a useful tool for studying such interference. CCLs have been considered mainly in the context of reliable FIFO channels (without duplication), where one can design programs layers that do not interfere with any other layer. When channels are less than perfect such programs are no longer feasible. The absence of interference between layers becomes context-dependent. In this paper we study the impact of message duplication and loss on the safety on the safety of layer composition. Using a communication phase operator, the fits after relation among programs is defined. If program Q fits after P then P and Q will not interfere with each other in executions of P ∗ Q. For programs P and Q in a natural class of programs we outline efficient algorithms for the following: (1) deciding whether Q fits after P; (2) deciding whether QsealsP, meaning that Q fits after P and no following program can communicate with P; and (3) constructing a separatorS that both fits after P and satisfies that Q fits after P ∗ S.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chou, C.T., Gafni, E.: Understanding and verifying distributed algorithms using stratified decomposition. In: Dolev, D. (ed.) PODC 1988, pp. 44–65. ACM Press, New York (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Roever, W.-P., de Boer, F., Hannemann, U., Hooman, J., Lakhnech, Y., Poel, M., Zwiers, J.: Concurrency Verification. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elrad, T., Francez, N.: Decomposition of distributed programs into communication-closed layers. Science of Computer Programming 2(3), 155–173 (1982)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engelhardt, K., Moses, Y.: Causing communication closure: Safe program composition with non-FIFO channels. In: Fraigniaud, P. (ed.) DISC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3724, pp. 229–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Engelhardt, K., Moses, Y.: Single-bit messages are insufficient in the presence of duplication. In: Pal, A., Kshemkalyani, A.D., Kumar, R., Gupta, A. (eds.) IWDC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3741, pp. 25–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fekete, A., Lynch, N.: The need for headers: An impossibility result for communication over unreliable channels. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Klop, J.W. (eds.) CONCUR 1990. LNCS, vol. 458, pp. 199–215. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerth, R., Shrira, L.: On proving communication closedness of distributed layers. In: Nori, K.V. (ed.) FSTTCS 1986. LNCS, vol. 241, pp. 330–343. Springer, Heidelberg (1986)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janssen, W.: Layered Design of Parallel Systems. PhD thesis, University of Twente (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Janssen, W.: Layers as knowledge transitions in the design of distributed systems. In: Brinksma, E., Steffen, B., Cleaveland, W.R., Larsen, K.G., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1019, pp. 304–318. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Janssen, W., Poel, M., Zwiers, J.: Action systems and action refinement in the development of parallel systems. In: Groote, J.F., Baeten, J.C.M. (eds.) CONCUR 1991. LNCS, vol. 527, pp. 298–316. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koo, R., Toueg, S.: Effects of message loss on the termination of distributed protocols. Information Processing Letters 27(4), 181–188 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamport, L.: Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM 7, 558–565 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meenakshi, B., Ramanujam, R.: Reasoning about message passing in finite state environments. In: Welzl, E., Montanari, U., Rolim, J.D.P. (eds.) ICALP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1853, pp. 487–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meenakshi, B., Ramanujam, R.: Reasoning about layered message passing systems. Computer Languages, Systems & Structures 30(3-4), 171–206 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moses, Y., Kislev, O.: Knowledge-oriented programming. In: PODC 1993, pp. 261–270. ACM Press, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poel, M., Zwiers, J.: Layering techniques for development of parallel systems. In: Probst, D.K., von Bochmann, G. (eds.) CAV 1992. LNCS, vol. 663, pp. 16–29. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pratt, V.R.: Modelling concurrency with partial orders. International Journal of Parallel Programming 15(1), 33–71 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stomp, F.A., de Roever, W.-P.: A principle for sequential reasoning about distributed algorithms. Formal Aspects of Computing 6(6), 716–737 (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Engelhardt
    • 1
  • Yoram Moses
    • 2
  1. 1.CSE, UNSW, and NICTASydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringTechnionIsrael

Personalised recommendations