Formal Verification of Distributed Branching Multiway Synchronization Protocols

  • Hugues Evrard
  • Frédéric Lang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7892)


Distributed systems are hard to design, and formal methods help to find bugs early. Yet, there may still remain a semantic gap between a formal model and the actual distributed implementation, which is generally hand-written. Automated generation of distributed implementations requires an elaborate multiway synchronization protocol. In this paper, we explore how to verify correctness of such protocols. We generate formal models, written in the LNT language, of synchronization scenarios for three protocols and we use the CADP toolbox for automated formal verifications. We expose a bug leading to a deadlock in one protocol, and we discuss protocol extensions.


Model Check Mutual Exclusion Parallel Composition Protocol Process Protocol Message 
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.


  1. 1.
    Bagrodia, R.: Process synchronization: Design and performance evaluation of distributed algorithms. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 15(9), 1053–1065 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonakdarpour, B., Bozga, M., Jaber, M., Quilbeuf, J., Sifakis, J.: From high-level component-based models to distributed implementations. In: Proc. of the 10th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, pp. 209–218 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouajjani, A., Fernandez, J.C., Graf, S., Rodríguez, C., Sifakis, J.: Safety for Branching Time Semantics. In: Leach Albert, J., Monien, B., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (eds.) ICALP 1991. LNCS, vol. 510, pp. 76–92. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brookes, S.D., Hoare, C.A.R., Roscoe, A.W.: A Theory of Communicating Sequential Processes. Journal of the ACM 31(3), 560–599 (1984)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Champelovier, D., Clerc, X., Garavel, H., Guerte, Y., McKinty, C., Powazny, V., Lang, F., Serwe, W., Smeding, G.: Reference Manual of the LOTOS NT to LOTOS Translator (Version 5.8). Inria/CONVECS (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandy, K.M., Misra, J.: Parallel Program Design: A Foundation. Addison-Wesley (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coste, N., Garavel, H., Hermanns, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: Ten Years of Performance Evaluation for Concurrent Systems Using CADP. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6416, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: The Structure of the “THE”-Multiprogramming System. Comm. of the ACM (1968)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garavel, H.: OPEN/CAESAR: An Open Software Architecture for Verification, Simulation, and Testing. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F.: SVL: a Scripting Language for Compositional Verification. In: Proc. of FORTE. Kluwer (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2011: A Toolbox for the Construction and Analysis of Distributed Processes. STTT 15(2), 89–107 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garavel, H., Sighireanu, M.: A Graphical Parallel Composition Operator for Process Algebras. In: Proc. of FORTE/PSTV. Kluwer (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garavel, H., Viho, C., Zendri, M.: System Design of a CC-NUMA Multiprocessor Architecture using Formal Specification, Model-Checking, Co-Simulation, and Test Generation. STTT 3(3), 314–331 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Havender, J.W.: Avoiding deadlock in multitasking systems. IBM Systems Journal 7(2), 74–84 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC. LOTOS — A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. International Standard 8807, International Organization for Standardization (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC. Enhancements to LOTOS (E-LOTOS). International Standard 15437:2001, International Organization for Standardization (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lang, F.: EXP.OPEN 2.0: A Flexible Tool Integrating Partial Order, Compositional, and On-the-fly Verification Methods. In: Romijn, J.M.T., Smith, G.P., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 70–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mateescu, R., Oudot, E.: Bisimulator 2.0: An On-the-Fly Equivalence Checker based on Boolean Equation Systems. In: Proc. of MEMOCODE. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mateescu, R., Thivolle, D.: A Model Checking Language for Concurrent Value-Passing Systems. In: Cuellar, J., Sere, K. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 148–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall (1989)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park, D.: Concurrency and Automata on Infinite Sequences. In: Deussen, P. (ed.) GI-TCS 1981. LNCS, vol. 104, pp. 167–183. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parrow, J., Sjödin, P.: Designing a multiway synchronization protocol. Computer Communications 19(14), 1151–1160 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parrow, J., Sjödin, P.: Multiway synchronization verified with coupled simulation. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) CONCUR 1992. LNCS, vol. 630, pp. 518–533. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pérez, J.A., Corchuelo, R., Toro, M.: An order-based algorithm for implementing multiparty synchronization. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 16(12), 1173–1206 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sisto, R., Ciminiera, L., Valenzano, A.: A protocol for multirendezvous of LOTOS processes. IEEE Trans. on Computers 40(4), 437–447 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sjödin, P.: From LOTOS Specifications to Distributed Implementations. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Uppsala, Sweden (1991)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stöcker, J., Lang, F., Garavel, H.: Parallel Processes with Real-Time and Data: The ATLANTIF Intermediate Format. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 88–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Weijland, W.P.: Branching-Time and Abstraction in Bisimulation Semantics. In: Proc. of IFIP (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugues Evrard
    • 1
  • Frédéric Lang
    • 1
  1. 1.CONVECS TeamInria Grenoble Rhône-Alpes and LIG (Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble)MontbonnotFrance

Personalised recommendations