Showing 1–10 of 10 results for author: Toueg, S

You can lie but not deny: SWMR registers with signature properties in systems with Byzantine processes

Authors: Xing Hu, Sam Toueg

Abstract: We define and show how to implement SWMR registers that provide properties of unforgeable digital signatures - without actually using such signatures - in systems with Byzantine processes. Intuitively, processes can use these registers to write values as if they are ``signed'', such that these ``signed values'' can be ``verified'' by any process and ``relayed'' to any process. All our register imp… ▽ More We define and show how to implement SWMR registers that provide properties of unforgeable digital signatures - without actually using such signatures - in systems with Byzantine processes. Intuitively, processes can use these registers to write values as if they are ``signed'', such that these ``signed values'' can be ``verified'' by any process and ``relayed'' to any process. All our register implementations are from SWMR registers, and they work in systems with $n > 3f$ processes, $f$ of which can be Byzantine. We show that these implementations are optimal in the number of Byzantine processes they can tolerate: more precisely, we prove that if $3 \le n \le 3f$, the registers that we propose cannot be implemented from SWMR registers without using signatures. The registers that we introduce in this paper can also be implemented without signatures in message-passing systems with $n > 3f$ processes, $f$ of which can be Byzantine: this is because SWMR registers can be implemented in such systems (Mostéfaoui, Petrolia, Raynal, and Jard 2017). △ Less

Submitted 12 June, 2025; v1 submitted 13 April, 2025; originally announced April 2025.

Generalized Compare and Swap

Authors: Vassos Hadzilacos, Myles Thiessen, Sam Toueg

Abstract: In this paper, we first propose a natural generalization of the well-known compare-and-swap object, one that replaces the equality comparison with an arbitrary comparator. We then present a simple wait-free universal construction using this object and prove its correctness. In this paper, we first propose a natural generalization of the well-known compare-and-swap object, one that replaces the equality comparison with an arbitrary comparator. We then present a simple wait-free universal construction using this object and prove its correctness. △ Less

Submitted 24 October, 2024; originally announced October 2024.

Comments: 12 pages

On implementing SWMR registers from SWSR registers in systems with Byzantine failures

Authors: Xing Hu, Sam Toueg

Abstract: The implementation of registers from (potentially) weaker registers is a classical problem in the theory of distributed computing. Since Lamport's pioneering work [13], this problem has been extensively studied in the context of asynchronous processes with crash failures. In this paper, we investigate this problem in the context of Byzantine process failures, with and without process signatures.… ▽ More The implementation of registers from (potentially) weaker registers is a classical problem in the theory of distributed computing. Since Lamport's pioneering work [13], this problem has been extensively studied in the context of asynchronous processes with crash failures. In this paper, we investigate this problem in the context of Byzantine process failures, with and without process signatures. We first prove that, without signatures, there is no wait-free linearizable implementation of a 1-writer n-reader register from atomic 1-writer 1-reader registers. In fact, we show a stronger result, namely, even under the assumption that the writer can only crash and at most one reader can be malicious, there is no linearizable implementation of a 1-writer n-reader register from atomic 1-writer (n-1)-reader registers that ensures that every correct process eventually completes its operations. In light of this impossibility result, we give two implementations of a 1-writer n-reader register from atomic 1-writer 1-reader registers that work under different assumptions. The first implementation is linearizable (under any combination of process failures), but it guarantees that every correct process eventually completes its operations only under the assumption that the writer is correct or no reader is malicious -- thus matching the impossibility result. The second implementation assumes process signatures; it is bounded wait-free and linearizable under any combination of process failures. Finally, we show that without process signatures, even if we assume that the writer is correct and at most one of the readers can be malicious, it is impossible to guarantee that every correct reader completes each read operation in a bounded number of steps. △ Less

Submitted 19 February, 2023; v1 submitted 4 July, 2022; originally announced July 2022.

Comments: 50 pages

Parameterized algorithm for replicated objects with local reads

Authors: Changyu Bi, Vassos Hadzilacos, Sam Toueg

Abstract: We consider the problem of implementing linearizable objects that support both read and read-modify-write (RMW) operations in message-passing systems with process crashes. Since in many systems read operations vastly outnumber RMW operations, we are interested in implementations that emphasize the efficiency of read operations. We present a parametrized algorithm for partially synchronous system… ▽ More We consider the problem of implementing linearizable objects that support both read and read-modify-write (RMW) operations in message-passing systems with process crashes. Since in many systems read operations vastly outnumber RMW operations, we are interested in implementations that emphasize the efficiency of read operations. We present a parametrized algorithm for partially synchronous systems where processes have access to external clocks that are synchronized within $ε$. With this algorithm, every read operation is local (intuitively, it does not trigger messages). If a read is not concurrent with a conflicting RMW, it is performed immediately with no waiting; furthermore, even with a concurrent conflicting RMW, a read experiences very little delay in the worst-case. For example, the algorithm's parameters can be set to ensure that every read takes $ε$ time in the worst-case. To the best of our knowledge this is the first algorithm to achieve this bound in the partially synchronous systems that we assume here. Our parametrized algorithm generalizes the (non-parameterized) lease-based algorithm of Chandra et al. [6] where the worst-case time for reads is $3δ$, where $δ$ is the maximum message delay. The algorithm's parameters can be used to trade-off the worst-case times for read and RMW operations. They can also be used to take advantage of the fact that in many message-passing systems the delay of most messages is order of magnitudes smaller than the maximum message delay~$δ$: for example, the parameters can be set so that, in "nice" periods where message delays are $δ^* \ll δ$, reads take at most $ε$ time while RMWs take at most $3 δ^*$ time. △ Less

Submitted 4 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

MSC Class: 68Q85 ACM Class: C.2.4; F.2

An Impossibility Result on Strong Linearizability in Message-Passing Systems

Authors: David Yu Cheng Chan, Vassos Hadzilacos, Xing Hu, Sam Toueg

Abstract: We prove that in asynchronous message-passing systems where at most one process may crash, there is no lock-free strongly linearizable implementation of a weak object that we call Test-or-Set (ToS). This object allows a single distinguished process to apply the set operation once, and a different distinguished process to apply the test operation also once. Since this weak object can be directly im… ▽ More We prove that in asynchronous message-passing systems where at most one process may crash, there is no lock-free strongly linearizable implementation of a weak object that we call Test-or-Set (ToS). This object allows a single distinguished process to apply the set operation once, and a different distinguished process to apply the test operation also once. Since this weak object can be directly implemented by a single-writer single-reader (SWSR) register (and other common objects such as max-register, snapshot and counter), this result implies that there is no $1$-resilient lock-free strongly linearizable implementation of a SWSR register (and of these other objects) in message-passing systems. We also prove that there is no $1$-resilient lock-free \emph{write} strongly-linearizable implementation of a 2-writer 1-reader (2W1R) register in asynchronous message-passing systems. △ Less

Submitted 9 August, 2021; v1 submitted 3 August, 2021; originally announced August 2021.

Comments: 12 pages

Differentiated nonblocking: a new progress condition and a matching queue algorithm

Authors: David Y. C. Chan, Shucheng Chi, Vassos Hadzilacos, Sam Toueg

Abstract: In this paper, we first propose a new liveness requirement for shared objects and data structures, we then give a shared queue algorithm that satisfies this requirement and we prove its correctness. We also implement this algorithm and compare it to a well-known shared queue algorithm that is used in practice. In addition to having a stronger worst-case progress guarantee, our experimental results… ▽ More In this paper, we first propose a new liveness requirement for shared objects and data structures, we then give a shared queue algorithm that satisfies this requirement and we prove its correctness. We also implement this algorithm and compare it to a well-known shared queue algorithm that is used in practice. In addition to having a stronger worst-case progress guarantee, our experimental results suggest that, at the cost of a marginal decrease in throughput, our algorithm is significantly fairer, by a natural definition of fairness that we introduce here. △ Less

Submitted 22 March, 2021; originally announced March 2021.

On Register Linearizability and Termination

Authors: Vassos Hadzilacos, Xing Hu, Sam Toueg

Abstract: In a seminal work, Golab et al. showed that a randomized algorithm that works with atomic objects may lose some of its properties if we replace the atomic objects that it uses with linearizable objects. It was not known whether the properties that can be lost include the important property of termination (with probability 1). In this paper, we first show that, for randomized algorithms, terminatio… ▽ More In a seminal work, Golab et al. showed that a randomized algorithm that works with atomic objects may lose some of its properties if we replace the atomic objects that it uses with linearizable objects. It was not known whether the properties that can be lost include the important property of termination (with probability 1). In this paper, we first show that, for randomized algorithms, termination can indeed be lost. Golab et al. also introduced strong linearizability, and proved that strongly linearizable objects can be used as if they were atomic objects, even for randomized algorithms: they preserve the algorithm's correctness properties, including termination. Unfortunately, there are important cases where strong linearizability is impossible to achieve. In particular, Helmi et al. MWMR registers do not have strongly linearizable implementations from SWMR registers. So we propose a new type of register linearizability, called write strong-linearizability, that is strictly stronger than linearizability but strictly weaker than strong linearizability. We prove that some randomized algorithms that fail to terminate with linearizable registers, work with write strongly-linearizable ones. In other words, there are cases where linearizability is not sufficient but write strong-linearizability is. In contrast to the impossibility result mentioned above, we prove that write strongly-linearizable MWMR registers are implementable from SWMR registers. Achieving write strong-linearizability, however, is harder than achieving just linearizability: we give a simple implementation of MWMR registers from SWMR registers and we prove that this implementation is linearizable but not write strongly-linearizable. Finally, we prove that any linearizable implementation of SWMR registers is necessarily write strongly-linearizable; this holds for shared-memory, message-passing, and hybrid systems. △ Less

Submitted 25 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

On Linearizability and the Termination of Randomized Algorithms

Authors: Vassos Hadzilacos, Xing Hu, Sam Toueg

Abstract: We study the question of whether the "termination with probability 1" property of a randomized algorithm is preserved when one replaces the atomic registers that the algorithm uses with linearizable (implementations of) registers. We show that in general this is not so: roughly speaking, every randomized algorithm A has a corresponding algorithm A' that solves the same problem if the registers tha… ▽ More We study the question of whether the "termination with probability 1" property of a randomized algorithm is preserved when one replaces the atomic registers that the algorithm uses with linearizable (implementations of) registers. We show that in general this is not so: roughly speaking, every randomized algorithm A has a corresponding algorithm A' that solves the same problem if the registers that it uses are atomic or strongly-linearizable, but does not terminate if these registers are replaced with "merely" linearizable ones. Together with a previous result shown in [15], this implies that one cannot use the well-known ABD implementation of registers in message-passing systems to automatically transform any randomized algorithm that works in shared-memory systems into a randomized algorithm that works in message-passing systems: with a strong adversary the resulting algorithm may not terminate. △ Less

Submitted 28 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Randomized Consensus with Regular Registers

Authors: Vassos Hadzilacos, Xing Hu, Sam Toueg

Abstract: The well-known randomized consensus algorithm by Aspnes and Herlihy for asynchronous shared-memory systems was proved to work, even against a strong adversary, under the assumption that the registers that it uses are atomic registers. With atomic registers, every read or write operation is instantaneous (and thus indivisible). As pointed out by Golab et al. (2011), however, a randomized algorithm… ▽ More The well-known randomized consensus algorithm by Aspnes and Herlihy for asynchronous shared-memory systems was proved to work, even against a strong adversary, under the assumption that the registers that it uses are atomic registers. With atomic registers, every read or write operation is instantaneous (and thus indivisible). As pointed out by Golab et al. (2011), however, a randomized algorithm that works with atomic registers does not necessarily work if we replace the atomic registers that it uses with linearizable implementations of registers. This raises the following question: does the randomized consensus algorithm by Aspnes and Herlihy still work against a strong adversary if we replace its atomic registers with linearizable registers? We show that the answer is affirmative, in fact, we show that even linearizable registers are not necessary. More precisely, we prove that the algorithm by Aspnes and Herlihy works against a strong adversary even if the algorithm uses only regular registers. △ Less

Submitted 11 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

On Atomic Registers and Randomized Consensus in M&M Systems

Authors: Vassos Hadzilacos, Xing Hu, Sam Toueg

Abstract: Motivated by recent distributed systems technology, Aguilera et al. introduced a hybrid model of distributed computing, called message-and-memory model or m&m model for short [1]. In this model, processes can communicate by message passing and also by accessing some shared memory (e.g., through some RDMA connections). We first consider the basic problem of implementing an atomic single-writer mult… ▽ More Motivated by recent distributed systems technology, Aguilera et al. introduced a hybrid model of distributed computing, called message-and-memory model or m&m model for short [1]. In this model, processes can communicate by message passing and also by accessing some shared memory (e.g., through some RDMA connections). We first consider the basic problem of implementing an atomic single-writer multi-reader (SWMR) register shared by all the processes in m&m systems. Specifically, we give an algorithm that implements such a register in m&m systems and show that it is optimal in the number of process crashes that it can tolerate. This generalizes the well-known implementation of an atomic SWMR register in a pure message-passing system [5]. We then combine our register implementation for m&m systems with the well-known randomized consensus algorithm of Aspnes and Herlihy [4], and obtain a randomized consensus algorithm for m&m systems that is also optimal in the number of process crashes that it can tolerate. Finally, we determine the minimum number of RDMA connections that is sufficient to implement a SWMR register, or solve randomized consensus, in an m&m system with t process crashes, for any given t. △ Less

Submitted 13 December, 2020; v1 submitted 1 June, 2019; originally announced June 2019.