Abstract Distributed algorithms solving agreement problems like consensus or state machine replication are essential components of modern fault-tolerant distributed services. They are also notoriously hard to understand and reason about. Their complexity stems from the different assumptions on the environment they operate with, i.e., process or network link failures, Byzantine failures etc. In this paper, we propose a novel abstract representation of the dynamics of such protocols which focuses on quorums of responses (votes) to a request (proposal) that form during a run of the protocol. We show that focusing on such quorums, a run of a protocol can be viewed as working over a tree structure where different branches represent different possible outcomes of the protocol, the goal being to stabilize on the choice of a fixed branch. This abstraction resembles the description of recent protocols used in Blockchain infrastructures, e.g., the protocol supporting Bitcoin or Hotstuff. We show that this abstraction supports reasoning about the safety of various algorithms, e.g., Paxos, PBFT, Raft, and HotStuff, in a uniform way. In general, it provides a novel induction based argument for proving that such protocols are safe.

Linearizability is the de facto correctness criterion for concurrent data type implementations. Violation of linearizability is witnessed by an error trace in which the outputs of individual operations do not match those of a sequential execution of the same operations. Extensive work has been done in discovering linearizability violations, but little work has been done in trying to provide useful hints to the programmer when a violation is discovered by a tester tool. In this paper, we propose an approach that identifies the root causes of linearizability errors in the form of code blocks whose atomicity is required to restore linearizability. The key insight of this paper is that the problem can be reduced to a simpler algorithmic problem of identifying minimal root causes of conflict serializability violation in an error trace combined with a heuristic for identifying which of these are more likely to be the true root cause of non-linearizability. We propose theoretical results outlining this reduction, and an algorithm to solve the simpler problem. We have implemented our approach and carried out several experiments on realistic concurrent data types demonstrating its efficiency.

Asynchronous programs are notoriously difficult to reason about because they spawn computation tasks which take effect asynchronously in a nondeterministic way. Devising inductive invariants for such programs requires understanding and stating complex relationships between an unbounded number of computation tasks in arbitrarily long executions. In this paper, we introduce inductive sequentialization, a new proof rule that sidesteps this complexity via a sequential reduction, a sequential program that captures every behavior of the original program up to reordering of coarse-grained commutative actions. A sequential reduction of a concurrent program is easy to reason about since it corresponds to a simple execution of the program in an idealized synchronous environment, where processes act in a fixed order and at the same speed. We have implemented and integrated our proof rule in the CIVL verifier, allowing us to provably derive fine-grained implementations of asynchronous programs. We have successfully applied our proof rule to a diverse set of message-passing protocols, including leader election protocols, two-phase commit, and Paxos.

Distributed systems often replicate data at multiple locations to achieve availability despite network partitions. These systems accept updates at any replica and propagate them asynchronously to every other replica. Conflict-Free Replicated Data Types (CRDTs) provide a principled approach to the problem of ensuring that replicas are eventually consistent despite the asynchronous delivery of updates.

We present a method for proving that a program running under the Total Store Ordering (TSO) memory model is robust, i.e., all its TSO computations are equivalent to computations under the Sequential Consistency (SC) semantics. This method is inspired by Lipton’s reduction theory for proving atomicity of concurrent programs. For programs which are not robust, we introduce an abstraction mechanism that allows to construct robust programs over-approximating their TSO semantics. This enables the use of proof methods designed for the SC semantics in proving invariants that hold on the TSO semantics of a non-robust program. These techniques have been evaluated on a large set of benchmarks using the infrastructure provided by CIVL, a generic tool for reasoning about concurrent programs under the SC semantics.