Advertisement

Objects Shared by Byzantine Processes

(Extended Abstract)
  • Dahlia Malkhi
  • Michael Merritt
  • Michael Reiter
  • Gadi Taubenfeld
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1914)

Abstract

Work to date on algorithms for message-passing systems has explored a wide variety of types of faults, but corresponding work on shared memory systems has usually assumed that only crash faults are possible. In this work, we explore situations in which processes accessing shared objects can fail arbitrarily (Byzantine faults).

Keywords

Shared Memory Correct Process Shared Object Shared Memory System Faulty Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AttOO]
    P.C. Attie Wait-free Byzantine Agreement. Technical ReportNU-CCS-00-02, College of Computer Science, Northeastern University, May 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [AGMT95]
    Y. Afek, D. Greenberg, M. Merritt, and G. Taubenfeld. Computing with faulty shared memory. Journal of the ACM, 42(6):1231–1274, November 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [Bel92]
    G. Bell. Ultracomputers: A teraflop before its time. Communications of the ACM, 35(8):27–47, August 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [CL99]
    M. Castro and B. Liskov. Practical Byzantine fault tolerance. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation-OSDI’99, February, 1999, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  5. [Cha93]
    S. Chaudhuri. More choices allow more faults: set consensus problems in totally asynchronous systems. Information and Computation, 105(1): 132–158, July 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [CG89]
    N. Carriero and D. Gelernter. Linda in context. Communications of the ACM, 32(4):444–458, April 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [FLP85]
    M. Fischer, N. Lynch, and M. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM, 32:374–382, April1985.Google Scholar
  8. [Her91]
    M. Herlihy. Wait-free synchronization. A CM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 11(1): 124–149, January 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [JCT98]
    P. Jayanti, T. Chandra, and S. Toueg. Fault-tolerant wait-free shared objects. Journal of the ACM, 45(3):451–500, May 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [JT92]
    P. Jayanti, and S. Toueg. Some results on the impossibility, universality, and decidability of consensus. Proc. of the 6th Int. Workshop on Distributed Algorithms: LNCS, 647, pages 69–84. Springer Verlag, Nov. 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [HW90]
    M. P. Herlihy and J. M. Wing. Linearizability: A correctness condition for concurrent objects. A CM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 12(3):463–492, July 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [KMM98]
    K. P. Kihlstrom, L. E. Moser and P. M. Melliar-Smith. The SecureRing protocols for securing group communication. In Proceedings of the 31st IEEE Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, pages 317–326, January 1998.Google Scholar
  13. [LA87]
    M. C. Loui and H. H. Abu-Amara. Memory requirements for agreement among unreliable asynchronous processes. Advances in Computing Research, JAI Press, 4:163–183, 1987.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [LH89]
    K. Li and P. Hudak. Memory coherence in shared virtual memory systems. ACM Trans, on Programming Languages and Systems, 7(4):321–359, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. [MR00]
    D. Malkhi and M. K. Reiter. An architecture for survivable coordination in large distributed systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 12(2):187–202, March/April 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [MW87]
    S. Moran and Y. Wolfsthal. An extended impossibility result for asynchronous complete networks. Info. Processing Letters, 26:141–151, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. [PG89]
    F. M. Pittelli and H. Garcia-Molina. Reliable scheduling in a TMR database system. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 7(l):25–60, February 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Plo89]
    S. A. Plotkin. Sticky bits and universality of consensus. In Proc. 8th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 159–175, August 1989.Google Scholar
  19. [Rei96]
    M. K. Reiter. Distributing trust with the Rampart toolkit. Communications of the A CM 39(4):71–74, April 1996.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [SE+92]
    S. K. Shrivastava, P. D. Ezhilchelvan, N. A. Speirs, S. Tao, and A. Tully. Principal features of the VOLTAN family of reliable node architectures for distributed systems. IEEE Trans, on Computers, 41(5):542–549, May 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [TKB92]
    A. S. Tannenbaum, M. F. Kaashoek, and H. E. Balvrije. Parallel programming using shared objects. IEEE Computer, pages 10–19, August 1992.Google Scholar
  22. [TM96]
    G. Taubenfeld and S. Moran. Possibility and impossibility results in a shared memory environment. Ada Informatica, 33(1): 1–20, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dahlia Malkhi
    • 1
  • Michael Merritt
    • 2
  • Michael Reiter
    • 3
  • Gadi Taubenfeld
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Comuter Science and EngineeringThe Hebrew University of JerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.AT&T LabsFlorham Park
  3. 3.Bell LaboratoriesLucent TechnologiesMurray Hill
  4. 4.The Open UniversityTel-AvivIsrael
  5. 5.AT&T LabsIsrael

Personalised recommendations