ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Efficient fork-linearizable access to untrusted shared memory
Full text PdfPdf (359 KB)
Source
Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing archive
Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing table of contents
Portland, Oregon, USA
SESSION: Security table of contents
Pages: 129 - 138  
Year of Publication: 2007
ISBN:978-1-59593-616-5
Authors
Christian Cachin  IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, Ruschlikon, Switzerland
Abhi Shelat  IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, Ruschlikon, Switzerland
Alexander Shraer  Technion: Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Sponsors
SIGOPS: ACM Special Interest Group on Operating Systems
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 81,   Citation Count: 4
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1281100.1281121
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

When data is stored on a faulty server that is accessed concurrently by multiple clients, the server may present inconsistent data to different clients. For example, the server might complete a write operation of one client, but respond with stale data to another client. Mazières and Shasha (PODC 2002) introduced the notion of fork-consistency, also called fork-linearizability, which ensures that the operations seen by every client are linearizable and guarantees that if the server causes the views of two clients to differ in a single operation, they may never again see each other's updates after that without the server being exposed as faulty. In this paper, we improve the communication complexity of their fork-linearizable storage access protocol with n clients from Ω(n2) to O(n). We also prove that in every such protocol, a reader must wait for a concurrent writer. This explains a seeming limitation of their and of our improved protocol. Furthermore, we give novel characterizations of fork-linearizability and prove that it is neither stronger nor weaker than sequential consistency.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
I. Abraham, G. Chockler, I. Keidar, and D. Malkhi. Byzantine disk Paxos: Optimal resilience with Byzantine shared memory. Distributed Computing, 18(5):387--408, 2006.
 
2
 
3
M. Blum, W. Evans, P. Gemmell, S. Kannan, and M. Naor. Checking the correctness of memories. Algorithmica, 12:225--244, 1994.
 
4
C. Cachin, A. Shelat, and A. Shraer. Efficient fork-linearizable access to untrusted shared memory. TR RZ3688, IBM Research, Apr. 2007.
 
5
D. Clarke, S. Devadas, M. van Dijk, B. Gassend, and G. E. Suh. Incremental multiset hash functions and their application to memory integrity checking. In ASIACRYPT 2003.
 
6
7
 
8
K. E. Fu. Group sharing and random access in cryptographic storage file systems. Master Thesis, MIT LCS, 1998.
9
 
10
11
12
 
13
L. Lamport. On interprocess communication. Distributed Computing, 1(2):77--85, 86--101, 1986.
 
14
 
15
 
16
N. A. Lynch and M. R. Tuttle. An introduction to input/output automata. CWI Quaterly, 2(3):219--246, Sept. 1989.
 
17
18
 
19
A. Oprea and M. K. Reiter. On consistency of encrypted files. In DISC, pages 254--268, 2006.
20


Collaborative Colleagues:
Christian Cachin: colleagues
Abhi Shelat: colleagues
Alexander Shraer: colleagues