Distributed Protocol Combinators
Abstract
Distributed systems are hard to get right, model, test, debug, and teach. Their textbook definitions, typically given in a form of replicated state machines, are concise, yet prone to introducing programming errors if naïvely translated into runnable implementations.
In this work, we present Distributed Protocol Combinators (DPC), a declarative programming framework that aims to bridge the gap between specifications and runnable implementations of distributed systems, and facilitate their modeling, testing, and execution. DPC builds on the ideas from the state-of-the art logics for compositional systems verification. The contribution of DPC is a novel family of program-level primitives, which facilitates construction of larger distributed systems from smaller components, streamlining the usage of the most common asynchronous message-passing communication patterns, and providing machinery for testing and user-friendly dynamic verification of systems. This paper describes the main ideas behind the design of the framework and presents its implementation in Haskell. We introduce DPC through a series of characteristic examples and showcase it on a number of distributed protocols from the literature.
Notes
Acknowledgements
We thank PADL’19 referees for their many helpful suggestions. The authors’ work on this project has been supported by the grant by UK Research Institute in Verified Trustworthy Software Systems (VeTSS).
References
- 1.Brady,E.: Type-driven development of concurrent communicating systems. Comput. Sci. (AGH), 18(3) (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Chandra, T., Griesemer, R., Redstone, J.: Paxos made live: an engineering perspective. In: PODC (2007)Google Scholar
- 3.Coq Development Team. The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual (2018)Google Scholar
- 4.Dinsdale-Young, T., Dodds, M., Gardner, P., Parkinson, M.J., Vafeiadis, V.: Concurrent abstract predicates. In: D’Hondt, T. (ed.) ECOOP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6183, pp. 504–528. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14107-2_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Dragoi, C., Henzinger, T.A., Zufferey,D.: PSync: a partially synchronous language for fault-tolerant distributed algorithms. In: POPL (2016)Google Scholar
- 6.García-Pérez, Á., Gotsman, A., Meshman, Y., Sergey, I.: Paxos consensus, deconstructed and abstracted. In: Ahmed, A. (ed.) ESOP 2018. LNCS, vol. 10801, pp. 912–939. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89884-1_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Gray, J.N.: Notes on data base operating systems. In: Operating Systems (1978)Google Scholar
- 8.Hawblitzel, C., et al.: IronFleet: proving practical distributed systems correct. In: SOSP (2015)Google Scholar
- 9.Killian, C.E., Anderson, J.W., Braud, R., Jhala, R., Vahdat, A.M.: Mace: language support for building distributed systems. In: PLDI (2007)Google Scholar
- 10.Kleppmann, M.: How to do distributed locking, 08 February 2016. https://martin.kleppmann.com/2016/02/08/how-to-do-distributed-locking.html
- 11.Krogh-Jespersen, M., Timani, A., Ohlenbusch, M.E., Birkedal, L.: Aneris: a logic for node-local, modular reasoning of distributed systems (2018, unpublished draft)Google Scholar
- 12.Lamport, L.: The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16(2), 133–169 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Lamport, L.: Paxos made simple (2001)Google Scholar
- 14.Alford, M.W., et al.: Formal foundation for specification and verification. In: Paul, M., Siegert, H.J. (eds.) Distributed Systems: Methods and Tools for Specification. An Advanced Course. LNCS, vol. 190, pp. 203–285. Springer, Heidelberg (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-15216-4_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Lampson, B.W.: How to build a highly available system using consensus. In: WDAG (1996)Google Scholar
- 16.Leonini, L., Riviere, E., Felber, P.: SPLAY: distributed systems evaluation made simple (or how to turn ideas into live systems in a breeze). In: NSDI (2009)Google Scholar
- 17.Liang, S., Hudak, P., Jones, M.P.: Monad transformers and modular interpreters. In: POPL (1995)Google Scholar
- 18.Liu, Y.A., Stoller, S.D., Lin, B., Gorbovitski, M.: From clarity to efficiency for distributed algorithms. In: OOPSLA (2012)Google Scholar
- 19.Nanevski, A., Morrisett, G., Shinnar, A., Govereau, P., Birkedal, L.: Ynot: dependent types for imperative programs. In: ICFP (2008)Google Scholar
- 20.Newcombe, C., Rath, T., Zhang, F., Munteanu, B., Brooker, M., Deardeuff, M.: How Amazon web services uses formal methods. Commun. ACM 58(4), 66–73 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.O’Hearn, P., Reynolds, J., Yang, H.: Local reasoning about programs that alter data structures. In: Fribourg, L. (ed.) CSL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2142, pp. 1–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44802-0_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Pîrlea, G., Sergey, I.: Mechanising blockchain consensus. In: CPP (2018)Google Scholar
- 23.I. Sergey, A. Nanevski, and A. Banerjee. Mechanized verification of fine-grained concurrent programs. In PLDI, 2015Google Scholar
- 24.Sergey, I., Wilcox, J.R., Tatlock, Z.: Programming and proving with distributed protocols. In: PACMPL(POPL), vol. 2 (2018)Google Scholar
- 25.van Renesse, R., Altinbuken, D.: Paxos made moderately complex. ACM Comp. Surv. 47(3), 42 (2015)Google Scholar
- 26.Wilcox, J.R., Sergey, I., Tatlock, Z.: Programming language abstractions for modularly verified distributed systems. In: SNAPL (2017)Google Scholar
- 27.Wilcox, J.R., et al.: Verdi: a framework for implementing and formally verifying distributed systems. In: PLDI (2015)Google Scholar