Global Progress in Dynamically Interleaved Multiparty Sessions

Bettini, Lorenzo; Coppo, Mario; D’Antoni, Loris; Luca, Marco De; Dezani‐Ciancaglini, Mariangiola; Yoshida, Nobuko

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85361-9_33

Cited by 156 publications

(354 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

354

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The syntax of our choreographies is close to the ones used in [12,3,32] and satisfy similar properties such as knowledge of choice (or local choice); other formalisms include automata-based syntax (e.g., [33]), Petri nets [34] and graphical representation such as BPMN [35]. Each formalism generally comes with a set of conditions ensuring good properties on the system specified by the choreography -such as realisability [36] or connectedness [29] which ensure a correspondence between the order of messages exchanged by the projections and the order specified by the choreography.…”

Section: Choreographies and Compliance Among Contractsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…As in most works on session types (e.g., [3,32,12]), our contract model does not feature concurrency at the local level, i.e., it does not allow for a multi-threaded single contract. However, our results could be easily extended to support local concurrency, by using a choreography synthesis framework which does cater for it: for instance, the one in [37], which offers the same safety guarantees as the one in this work.…”

Section: Conformance Between Processes and Contractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, session type based systems do not cater for a notion of "culpability", and are generally unable to guarantee progress for processes interacting on multiple interleaved sessions without strong assumptions on their execution context. The problem of guaranteeing progress in a composition of processes interacting through several interleaved sessions is tackled in [19,32] via a complex typing system. Their results include that a well-typed compositions of processes can interact on multiple interleaved sessions without deadlocking -and thus, in our setting, without remaining persistently culpable.…”

Section: Conformance Between Processes and Contractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present paper, a similar progress result is provided for systems of honest participants (Corollary 6.3): a main difference wrt. [19,32] is that the honesty of each participant is checked "in isolation", without assumptions on the runtime context. Another related approach in the context of multiparty session types is that of run-time monitoring [38,39].…”

Section: Conformance Between Processes and Contractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Choreographies in the wild

Bartoletti

Lange

Scalas

et al. 2015

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the use of choreographies in distributed scenarios where, as in the real world, mutually distrusting (and possibly dishonest) participants may be unfaithful to their expected behaviour. In our model, each participant advertises its promised behaviour as a contract. Participants may interact through multiparty sessions, created when their contracts allow to synthesise a choreography. We show that systems of honest participants (which always adhere to their contracts) enjoy progress and session fidelity.

show abstract

Section: Choreographies and Compliance Among Contractsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Conformance Between Processes and Contractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conformance Between Processes and Contractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conformance Between Processes and Contractsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Choreographies in the wild

Bartoletti

Lange

Scalas

et al. 2015

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our calculus, which is an enrichment with security levels of the calculus in [2], this scenario may be described as the parallel composition of the following processes, where security levels appear as superscripts on both data and operators (here we omit unnecessary levels on operators and use ⊥ to mean "public" and to mean "secret"): if valid(cc ⊥ ) then β 1 ⊕ 2, ok .0 else β 1 ⊕ 2, ko .0…”

Section: A First Example On Access Control and Declassificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Session Types for Access and Information Flow Control

Capecchi

Castellani

Dezani‐Ciancaglini

et al. 2010

CONCUR 2010 - Concurrency Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We consider a calculus for multiparty sessions with delegation, enriched with security levels for session participants and data. We propose a type system that guarantees both session safety and a form of access control. Moreover, this type system ensures secure information flow, including controlled forms of declassification. In particular, the type system prevents leaks that could result from an unrestricted use of the control constructs of the calculus, such as session opening, selection, branching and delegation. We illustrate the use of our type system with a number of examples, which reveal an interesting interplay between the constraints used in security type systems and those used in session types to ensure properties like communication safety and session fidelity.

show abstract

Automated Modular Verification for Relaxed Communication Protocols

Costea

Chin

Qin

et al. 2018

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ensuring software correctness and safety for communicationcentric programs is important but challenging. In this paper we introduce a solution for writing communication protocols, for checking protocol conformance and for verifying implementation safety. This work draws on ideas from both multiparty session types, which provide a concise way to express communication protocols, as well as from separationstyle logics for shared-memory concurrency, which provide strong safety guarantees for resource sharing. On the one hand, our proposal improves the expressiveness and precision of session types, without sacrificing their conciseness. On the other hand, it increases the applicability of software verification as well as its precision, by making it protocol aware. We also show how to perform the verification of such programs in a modular and automatic fashion. one of the communicating entities requires the re-validation of the entire system. Since validation might be expensive, or difficult to achieve if the source code of certain components is not available, it is desirable for the developer to be able to only validate her changes locally, rather than at the global level. Over the last decades, behavioral types [35,26] have been studied as specifications of the interactions in communicating systems. In particular, multiparty session types [23], or MPSTs, provide a user-friendly syntax for writing choreographic specifications of distributed systems, and a lightweight mechanism for enforcing communication safety. Communication is considered correct when the system's constituent processes are statically type-checked against the end-point projections of the MPST. This formalism and its numerous extensions are attractive in checking if the implementation follows the intended communication pattern, but it lacks the strong safety and correctness guarantees normally provided by the resource-aware verification systems. Specifically, the MPST approach checks if a transmission's exchanged type is the expected one. However, in their most common form, MPSTs are unable to assert something about the message's numerical properties, and even less so about its carried resources in the case of tightly coupled systems. All these, while numerical properties and resource sharing constitute the pièce de résistance for separation logic [38], a logic for reasoning about resource sharing. In this work, we attach a communication logic in the user-friendly style of MPST, to a separation logic for program verification. Even though we draw on ideas from MPST, the proposed logic differs from MPST in a number of features which yield a more expressive communication specification-without compromising its friendly syntax. The current proposal ultimately leads to stronger guarantees w.r.t. the safety and correctness of distributed system. We shall next highlight these differences. Writing Multiparty Communication Protocols. The language we propose for writing communication protocols is described in Fig. 1a. Similar to MPST, the language contains the te...

show abstract

Global Progress in Dynamically Interleaved Multiparty Sessions

Cited by 156 publications

References 19 publications

Choreographies in the wild

Choreographies in the wild

Session Types for Access and Information Flow Control

Automated Modular Verification for Relaxed Communication Protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About