|
ABSTRACT
A method is proposed for reasoning about safety and liveness properties of message passing networks. The method is hierarchical and is based upon combining the specifications of component processes to obtain the specification of a network. The inference rules for safety properties use induction on the number of messages transmitted; liveness proofs use techniques similar to termination proofs in sequential programs. We illustrate the method with two examples: concatenations of buffers to construct larger buffers and a special case of Stenning protocol for message communication over noisy channels.
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
|
|
| |
2
|
|
| |
3
|
Hailpern, B. and S. Owicki, "Modular Verification of Computer Communication Protocols," Research Report RC8726, IBM Watson Research Center, March 1981.
|
| |
4
|
Levin, G.M. and D. Gries, "A Proof System for Communicating Sequential Processes," Acta Informatica 15, Springer-Verlag, 1981.
|
| |
5
|
Misra, J. and K.M. Chandy, "Proofs of Networks of Processes," IEEE-TSE, Vol. SE-7, No. 4, July 1981.
|
| |
6
|
|
| |
7
|
Owicki, S. and L. Lamport, "Proving Liveness Properties of Concurrent Programs," Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, 1980.
|
CITED BY 17
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Koymans , Jan Vytopil , Willem P. de Roever, Real-time programming and asynchronous message passing, Proceedings of the second annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, p.187-197, August 17-19, 1983, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Van Nguyen , David Gries , Susan Owicki, A model and temporal proof system for networks of processes, Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.121-131, January 14-16, 1985, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
|
|