Proving Simpson's Four-Slot Algorithm Using Ownership Transfer

Wang, Shuling; Wang, Xu

doi:10.29007/l2sp

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our work differs significantly from existing works on four-slot algorithm verification [2,7,1,4,9]. [7] uses model checking whilst the others, like us, uses theorem proving.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lastly, our proof adopts the global approach of assertional reasoning whilst the previous work [1,9] uses more thread-local approach with rely/guarantee, separation logics and ownership transfer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In conjunction, they implies the linearisabilty [3] of the Simpson's asynchronous communication mechanism between a reader and a writer [5]; that is, behaviourally and abstractly the mechanism acts as if it is a single atomic register (with linearisabilty semantics) shared between the two parties. The work is inspired by and builds on previous works tackling the same problem by others using a variety of different techniques [2,7,1,4,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A simple proof of three properties on Simpson's 4-slot Algorithm

Wang¹,

Xu²

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present an invariance proof of three properties on Simpson's 4-slot algorithm, i.e. data-race freedom, data coherence and data freshness, which together implies linearisability of the algorithm. It is an extension of previous works whose proof focuses mostly on data-race freedom. In addition, our proof uses simply inductive invariants and transition invariants [6], whereas previous work uses more sophisticated machinery like separation logics, rely-guarantee or ownership transfer.

show abstract

“…Our work differs significantly from existing works on four-slot algorithm verification [2,7,1,4,9]. [7] uses model checking whilst the others, like us, uses theorem proving.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A simple proof of three properties on Simpson's 4-slot Algorithm

Wang¹,

Xu²

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is done precisely to ensure (data) race freedom so one would anticipate that separation logic would be in its element. There is, in fact, one paper that uses separation logic for precisely this form of argument; unfortunately [WW12] does not include an argument that the reader always gets the 'freshest' value and a recent private correspondence with one of the authors indicates that they have not extended their work to cover this essential property.…”

Section: Approaches To Specifying Acmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Possible values: Exploring a concept for concurrency

Jones

Hayes

2016

Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important issue in concurrency is interference. This issue manifests itself in both shared-variable and communication-based concurrency -this paper focusses on the former case where interference is caused by the environment of a process changing the values of shared variables. Rely/guarantee approaches have been shown to be useful in specifying and reasoning compositionally about concurrent programs. This paper explores the use of a "possible values" notation for reasoning about variables whose values can be changed multiple times by interference. Apart from the value of this concept in providing clear specifications, it offers a principled way of avoiding the need for some auxiliary (or ghost) variables whose unwise use can destroy compositionality.

show abstract

“…5) in a novel way. The only publication that appears to use SL to reason about ownership exchange in Simpson's algorithm is [WW10] which confines itself to coherence and stops short of proving the "freshness" property.…”

Section: Abstract Race Avoidancementioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing expressiveness in formal approaches to concurrency

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One might think that specifying and reasoning about concurrent programs would be easier with more expressive languages. This paper questions that view. Clearly too weak a notation can mean that useful properties either cannot be expressed or their expression is unnatural. But choosing too powerful a notation also has its drawbacks since reasoning receives little guidance. For example, few would suggest that programming languages themselves provide tractable specifications. Both rely/guarantee methods and separation logic(s) provide useful frameworks in which it is natural to reason about aspects of concurrency. Rather than pursue an approach of extending the notations of either approach, this paper starts with the issues that appear to be inescapable with concurrency and-only as a response thereto-examines ways in which these fundamental challenges can be met. Abstraction is always a ubiquitous tool and its influence on how the key issues are tackled is examined in each case.

show abstract

Proving Simpson's Four-Slot Algorithm Using Ownership Transfer

Cited by 3 publications

References 19 publications

A simple proof of three properties on Simpson's 4-slot Algorithm

A simple proof of three properties on Simpson's 4-slot Algorithm

Possible values: Exploring a concept for concurrency

Balancing expressiveness in formal approaches to concurrency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About