On Efficient Models for Model Checking Message-Passing Distributed Protocols

  • Péter Bokor
  • Marco Serafini
  • Neeraj Suri
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6117)


The complexity of distributed algorithms, such as state machine replication, motivates the use of formal methods to assist correctness verification. The design of the formal model of an algorithm directly affects the efficiency of the analysis. Therefore, it is desirable that this model does not add “unnecessary” complexity to the analysis. In this paper, we consider a general message-passing (MP) model of distributed algorithms and compare different ways of modeling the message traffic. We prove that the different MP models are equivalent with respect to the common properties of distributed algorithms. Therefore, one can select the model which is best suited for the applied verification technique.

We consider MP models which differ regarding whether (1) the event of message delivery can be interleaved with other events and (2) a computation event must consume all messages that have been delivered after the last computation event of the same process. For generalized MP distributed protocols and especially focusing on fault-tolerance, we show that our proposed model (without interleaved delivery events and with relaxed semantics of computation events) is significantly more efficient for explicit state model checking. For example, the model size of the Paxos algorithm is 1/13 th that of existing equivalent MP models.


  1. 1.
    Attiya, H., Welch, J.: Distributed Computing. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benzel, T., et al.: Design, Deployment, and Use of the Deter Testbed. In: Proc. DETER Community Workshop on Cyber Security Experimentation and Test (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bokor, P., Serafini, M., Suri, N., Veith, H.: Role-Based Symmetry Reduction of Fault-tolerant Distributed Protocols with Language Support. In: Proc. ICFEM, pp. 147–166 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Chandra, T.D., et al.: Paxos Made Live: An Engineer. Persp. In: Proc. PODC, pp. 398–407 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaouch-Saad, M., Charron-Bost, V., Merz, S.: A Reduction Theorem for the Verification of Round-Based Distributed Algorithms. In: Bournez, O., Potapov, I. (eds.) RP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5797, pp. 93–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charron-Bost, B., Schiper, A.: The Heard-Of Model: Computing in Distributed Systems with Benign Failures. Distr. Comp. (to Appear, 2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dill, D.L., et al.: Protocol Verif. as a Hardware Design Aid. In: Proc. ICCD, pp. 522–525 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lamport, L.: The Part-Time Parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16(2), 133–169 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamport, L., et al.: The Byz. Generals Problem. ACM TOPLAS 4(3), 382–401 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamport, L.: What good is Temporal Logic? In: Proc. Inf. Processing, pp. 657–667 (1983)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, A., et al.: Symmetry in Temporal Logic MC. ACM Comp. Surv. 38(3), 8 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang, J., et al.: MODIST: Transp. MC of Unmodif. Distr. Sys. In: Proc. NSDI, pp. 213–228 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Péter Bokor
    • 1
  • Marco Serafini
    • 1
  • Neeraj Suri
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universität DarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations