Advertisement

Accuracy of Message Counting Abstraction in Fault-Tolerant Distributed Algorithms

  • Igor Konnov
  • Josef Widder
  • Francesco Spegni
  • Luca Spalazzi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10145)

Abstract

Fault-tolerant distributed algorithms are a vital part of mission-critical distributed systems. In principle, automatic verification can be used to ensure the absence of bugs in such algorithms. In practice however, model checking tools will only establish the correctness of distributed algorithms if message passing is encoded efficiently. In this paper, we consider abstractions suitable for many fault-tolerant distributed algorithms that count messages for comparison against thresholds, e.g., the size of a majority of processes. Our experience shows that storing only the numbers of sent and received messages in the global state is more efficient than explicitly modeling message buffers or sets of messages. Storing only the numbers is called message-counting abstraction. Intuitively, this abstraction should maintain all necessary information. In this paper, we confirm this intuition for asynchronous systems by showing that the abstract system is bisimilar to the concrete system. Surprisingly, if there are real-time constraints on message delivery (as assumed in fault-tolerant clock synchronization algorithms), then there exist neither timed bisimulation, nor time-abstracting bisimulation. Still, we prove this abstraction useful for model checking: it preserves ATCTL properties, as the abstract and the concrete models simulate each other.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdulla, P.A., Deneux, J., Mahata, P.: Multi-clock timed networks. In: LICS, pp. 345–354 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdulla, P.A., Haziza, F., Holík, L.: All for the price of few. In: Giacobazzi, R., Berdine, J., Mastroeni, I. (eds.) VMCAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7737, pp. 476–495. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35873-9_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abdulla, P.A., Jonsson, B.: Model checking of systems with many identical timed processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 290(1), 241–264 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alberti, F., Ghilardi, S., Orsini, A., Pagani, E.: Counter abstractions in model checking of distributed broadcast algorithms: some case studies. In: CILC, pp. 102–117 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alberti, F., Ghilardi, S., Pagani, E.: Counting constraints in flat array fragments. In: Olivetti, N., Tiwari, A. (eds.) IJCAR 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9706, pp. 65–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40229-1_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., Dill, D.: Model-checking for real-time systems. In: LICS, pp. 414–425 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 126(2), 183–235 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aminof, B., Kotek, T., Rubin, S., Spegni, F., Veith, H.: Parameterized model checking of rendezvous systems. In: Baldan, P., Gorla, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8704, pp. 109–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44584-6_9 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aminof, B., Rubin, S., Zuleger, F., Spegni, F.: Liveness of parameterized timed networks. In: Halldórsson, M.M., Iwama, K., Kobayashi, N., Speckmann, B. (eds.) ICALP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9135, pp. 375–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-47666-6_30 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Außerlechner, S., Jacobs, S., Khalimov, A.: Tight cutoffs for guarded protocols with fairness. In: Jobstmann, B., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) VMCAI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9583, pp. 476–494. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-49122-5_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Massachusetts (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G., Hakansson, J., Pettersson, P., Yi, W., Hendriks, M.: UPPAAL 4.0. In: QEST, pp. 125–126 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bracha, G., Toueg, S.: Asynchronous consensus and broadcast protocols. J. ACM 32(4), 824–840 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bulychev, P., Chatain, T., David, A., Larsen, K.G.: Efficient on-the-fly algorithm for checking alternating timed simulation. In: Ouaknine, J., Vaandrager, F.W. (eds.) FORMATS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5813, pp. 73–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04368-0_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Čerāns, K.: Decidability of bisimulation equivalences for parallel timer processes. In: Bochmann, G., Probst, D.K. (eds.) CAV 1992. LNCS, vol. 663, pp. 302–315. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). doi: 10.1007/3-540-56496-9_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Massachusetts (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drăgoi, C., Henzinger, T.A., Veith, H., Widder, J., Zufferey, D.: A logic-based framework for verifying consensus algorithms. In: McMillan, K.L., Rival, X. (eds.) VMCAI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8318, pp. 161–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-54013-4_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fisman, D., Kupferman, O., Lustig, Y.: On verifying fault tolerance of distributed protocols. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 315–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Függer, M., Schmid, U.: Reconciling fault-tolerant distributed computing and systems-on-chip. Distrib. Comput. 24(6), 323–355 (2012)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    John, A., Konnov, I., Schmid, U., Veith, H., Widder, J.: Parameterized model checking of fault-tolerant distributed algorithms by abstraction. In: FMCAD, pp. 201–209 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    John, A., Konnov, I., Schmid, U., Veith, H., Widder, J.: Towards modeling and model checking fault-tolerant distributed algorithms. In: Bartocci, E., Ramakrishnan, C.R. (eds.) SPIN 2013. LNCS, vol. 7976, pp. 209–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39176-7_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaynar, D.K., Lynch, N.A., Segala, R., Vaandrager, F.W.: The Theory of Timed I/O Automata. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Konnov, I., Lazić, M., Veith, H., Widder, J.: A short counterexample property for safety and liveness verification of fault-tolerant distributed algorithms. In: POPL 2017. (to appear, preliminary version at arXiv:1608.05327)
  26. 26.
    Konnov, I., Veith, H., Widder, J.: On the completeness of bounded model checking for threshold-based distributed algorithms: reachability. In: Baldan, P., Gorla, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8704, pp. 125–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44584-6_10 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Konnov, I., Veith, H., Widder, J.: SMT and POR beat counter abstraction: parameterized model checking of threshold-based distributed algorithms. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 85–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Konnov, I., Veith, H., Widder, J.: What you always wanted to know about model checking of fault-tolerant distributed algorithms. In: Mazzara, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) PSI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9609, pp. 6–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41579-6_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lynch, N., Vaandrager, F.: Forward and backward simulations for timing-based systems. In: Bakker, J.W., Huizing, C., Roever, W.P., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) REX 1991. LNCS, vol. 600, pp. 397–446. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). doi: 10.1007/BFb0032002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mostéfaoui, A., Mourgaya, E., Parvédy, P.R., Raynal, M.: Evaluating the condition-based approach to solve consensus. In: DSN, pp. 541–550 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Namjoshi, K.S., Trefler, R.J.: Uncovering symmetries in irregular process networks. In: Giacobazzi, R., Berdine, J., Mastroeni, I. (eds.) VMCAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7737, pp. 496–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35873-9_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pease, M., Shostak, R., Lamport, L.: Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. J. ACM 27(2), 228–234 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Song, Y.J., Renesse, R.: Bosco: one-step byzantine asynchronous consensus. In: Taubenfeld, G. (ed.) DISC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5218, pp. 438–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-87779-0_30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spalazzi, L., Spegni, F.: Parameterized model-checking of timed systems with conjunctive guards. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Kroening, D. (eds.) VSTTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8471, pp. 235–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12154-3_15 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Srikanth, T.K., Toueg, S.: Optimal clock synchronization. J. ACM 34(3), 626–645 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Srikanth, T.K., Toueg, S.: Simulating authenticated broadcasts to derive simple fault-tolerant algorithms. Distrib. Comput. 2, 80–94 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tripakis, S., Yovine, S.: Analysis of timed systems using time-abstracting bisimulations. FMSD 18, 25–68 (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tsuchiya, T., Schiper, A.: Verification of consensus algorithms using satisfiability solving. Distrib. Comput. 23(5–6), 341–358 (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Widder, J., Schmid, U.: Booting clock synchronization in partially synchronous systems with hybrid process and link failures. Distrib. Comput. 20(2), 115–140 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Widder, J., Schmid, U.: The theta-model: achieving synchrony without clocks. Distrib. Comput. 22(1), 29–47 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Konnov
    • 1
  • Josef Widder
    • 1
  • Francesco Spegni
    • 2
  • Luca Spalazzi
    • 2
  1. 1.TU Wien (Vienna University of Technology)ViennaAustria
  2. 2.UnivPMAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations