Verifying Concurrent Data Structures by Simulation

Colvin, Robert; Doherty, Simon; Groves, Lindsay

doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2005.04.026

Cited by 34 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our example stack and its lock-free implementation is based on that given in [3]. Initially the stack is described as a sequence of elements of some given type T together with two operations push and pop.…”

Section: The Stack and Its Lock-free Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent work on formalizing and verifying lock-free algorithms includes [9,3,1,15] as well as our own [6]. These show correctness by showing that an abstraction (or simulation or refinement) relation exists between the abstract specification and the concurrent implementation [9,3,1,15,10,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These show correctness by showing that an abstraction (or simulation or refinement) relation exists between the abstract specification and the concurrent implementation [9,3,1,15,10,6]. The proofs are manual or partly supported by theorem provers like, for instance, PVS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, we restricted the linearization point to always occur at the end of a sequence of operations implementing an atomic abstract operation. This allowed us to prove the correctness of a slightly simplified version of the algorithm given in [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mechanizing a Correctness Proof for a Lock-Free Concurrent Stack

Derrick

Schellhorn

Wehrheim

2008

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Distributed algorithms are inherently complex to verify. In this paper we show how to verify that a concurrent lock-free implementation of a stack is correct by mechanizing the proof that it is linearizable, linearizability being a correctness notion for concurrent objects. Our approach consists of two parts: the first part is independent of the example and derives proof obligations local for one process which imply linearizabilty. The conditions establish a (special sort of non-atomic) refinement relationship between the specification and the concurrent implementation. These are used in the second part to verify the lock-free stack implementation. We use the specification language Z to describe the algorithms and the KIV theorem prover to mechanize the proof.

show abstract

Section: The Stack and Its Lock-free Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mechanizing a Correctness Proof for a Lock-Free Concurrent Stack

Derrick

Schellhorn

Wehrheim

2008

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The algorithm considered here was taken from Colvin and Groves [18,22], who have given a correctness proof using IO automata and the theorem prover PVS. We have only studied the core algorithm, their work also discusses extending the algorithm with elimination arrays, and adds modification counts to avoid the ABA problem.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proving linearizability with temporal logic

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linearizability is a global correctness criterion for concurrent systems. One technique to prove linearizability is applying a composition theorem which reduces the proof of a property of the overall system to sufficient rely-guarantee conditions for single processes. In this paper, we describe how the temporal logic framework implemented in the KIV interactive theorem prover can be used to model concurrent systems and to prove such a composition theorem. Finally, we show how this generic theorem can be instantiated to prove linearizability of two classic lock-free implementations: a Treiber-like stack and a slightly improved version of Michael and Scott’s queue.

show abstract

Testing for linearizability

Lowe

2016

Concurrency and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Linearizability is a well established correctness condition for concurrent datatypes. Informally, a concurrent datatype is linearizable if operation calls appear to have an effect, one at a time, in an order that is consistent with a sequential (specification) datatype, with each operation taking effect between the point at which it is called and when it returns. We present a testing framework for linearizabilty. The basic idea is to generate histories of the datatype randomly, and to test whether each is linearizable. We consider five algorithms—one existing, and four new—for testing whether a history of a concurrent datatype implementation is linearizable. Four of these are generic: they will work with any concurrent datatype for which there is a corresponding sequential specification datatype. The fifth considers specifically a history of a concurrent queue. We also combine algorithms in competition parallel in various ways. We perform an experimental evaluation of the different algorithms. We illustrate that the framework is very effective in finding bugs, and discuss the pragmatics of using the framework. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Verifying Concurrent Data Structures by Simulation

Cited by 34 publications

References 14 publications

Mechanizing a Correctness Proof for a Lock-Free Concurrent Stack

Mechanizing a Correctness Proof for a Lock-Free Concurrent Stack

Proving linearizability with temporal logic

Testing for linearizability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About