A Multiparty Multi-session Logic

  • Laura Bocchi
  • Romain Demangeon
  • Nobuko Yoshida
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8191)

Abstract

Recent work on the enhancement of multiparty sessions types with logical annotations enables not only the validation of structural properties of the conversations and on the sorts of the messages, but also the validation of properties on the actual values exchanged. However, the specification and verification of the mutual effects of multiple cross-session interactions is still an open problem. We introduce a multiparty logical proof system with virtual states that enables the tractable specification and validation of fine-grained inter-session correctness properties of processes participating in several interleaved sessions. We present a sound and relatively complete static verification method.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bettini, L., Coppo, M., D’Antoni, L., De Luca, M., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Yoshida, N.: Global progress in dynamically interleaved multiparty sessions. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 418–433. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhargavan, K., Corin, R., Deniélou, P.-M., Fournet, C., Leifer, J.: Cryptographic protocol synthesis and verification for multiparty sessions. In: CSF, pp. 124–140 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhargavan, K., Fournet, C., Gordon, A.D.: Modular verification of security protocol code by typing. In: POPL, pp. 445–456 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bocchi, L., Demangeon, R., Yoshida, N.: A multiparty multi-session logic (extended report), http://www.cs.le.ac.uk/people/lb148/statefulassertions.html
  5. 5.
    Bocchi, L., Honda, K., Tuosto, E., Yoshida, N.: A theory of design-by-contract for distributed multiparty interactions. In: Gastin, P., Laroussinie, F. (eds.) CONCUR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6269, pp. 162–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bocchi, L., Lange, J., Tuosto, E.: Three algorithms and a methodology for amending contracts for choreographies. Scientific Annals of Computer Science 22(1), 61–104 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caires, L., Pfenning, F.: Session types as intuitionistic linear propositions. In: Gastin, P., Laroussinie, F. (eds.) CONCUR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6269, pp. 222–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caires, L., Vieira, H.T.: Conversation types. In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ESOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5502, pp. 285–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Capecchi, S., Castellani, I., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M.: Information flow safety in multiparty sessions. In: EXPRESS. EPTCS, vol. 64, pp. 16–30 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carbone, M., Honda, K., Yoshida, N.: Structured interactional exceptions in session types. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 402–417. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Castagna, G., Padovani, L.: Contracts for mobile processes. In: Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) CONCUR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5710, pp. 211–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, T.-C., Honda, K.: Specifying stateful asynchronous properties for distributed programs. In: Koutny, M., Ulidowski, I. (eds.) CONCUR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7454, pp. 209–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coppo, M., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M.: Structured communications with concurrent constraints. In: Kaklamanis, C., Nielson, F. (eds.) TGC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5474, pp. 104–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deniélou, P.-M., Yoshida, N.: Dynamic multirole session types. In: POPL, pp. 435–446. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Commun. ACM 18, 453–457 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freeman, T., Pfenning, F.: Refinement types for ML. SIGPLAN Not. 26(6), 268–277 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ganai, M.K.: Efficient decision procedure for bounded integer non-linear operations using SMT(\(\mathcal{LIA}\)). In: Chockler, H., Hu, A.J. (eds.) HVC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5394, pp. 68–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Multiparty Asynchronous Session Types. In: POPL, pp. 273–284. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jones, C.B.: Abstraction as a unifying link for formal approaches to concurrency. In: Eleftherakis, G., Hinchey, M., Holcombe, M. (eds.) SEFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7504, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nelson, G., Oppen, D.C.: A simplifier based on efficient decision algorithms. In: POPL, pp. 141–150. ACM (1978)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Pugh, W.: The omega test: a fast and practical integer programming algorithm for dependence analysis. In: Supercomputing 1991, pp. 4–13. ACM, New York (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Bocchi
    • 1
  • Romain Demangeon
    • 2
  • Nobuko Yoshida
    • 3
  1. 1.University of LeicesterUK
  2. 2.Queen Mary, University of LondonUK
  3. 3.Imperial College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations