Abstract:Implementations of concurrent objects should guarantee linearizability and a progress property such as wait-freedom, lock-freedom, starvation-freedom, or deadlock-freedom. These progress properties describe conditions under which a method call is guaranteed to complete. However, they fail to describe how clients are affected, making it difficult to utilize them in layered and modular program verification. Also we lack verification techniques for starvation-free or deadlock-free objects. They are challenging to verify because the fairness assumption introduces complicated interdependencies among progress of threads. Even worse, none of the existing results applies to concurrent objects with partial methods, i.e., methods that are supposed not to return under certain circumstances. A typical example is the lock_acquire method, which must not return when the lock has already been acquired. In this tutorial we examine the progress properties of concurrent objects. We formulate each progress property (together with linearizability as a basic correctness requirement) in terms of contextual refinement. This essentially gives us progress-aware abstraction for concurrent objects. Thus, when verifying clients of the objects, we can soundly replace the concrete object implementations with their abstractions, achieving modular verification. For concurrent objects with partial methods, we formulate two new progress properties, partial starvation-freedom (PSF) and partial deadlock-freedom (PDF). We also design four patterns to write abstractions for PSF or PDF objects under strongly or weakly fair scheduling, so that these objects contextually refine their abstractions. Finally, we introduce a rely-guarantee style program logic LiLi for verifying linearizability and progress together for concurrent objects. It unifies thread-modular reasoning about all the six progress properties (wait-freedom, lock-freedom, starvation-freedom, deadlock-freedom, PSF and PDF) in one framework. We have successfully applied LiLi to verify starvation-freedom or deadlock-freedom of representative algorithms such as lock-coupling lists, optimistic lists and lazy lists, and PSF or PDF of lock algorithms.

Proving linearisability via coarse-grained abstraction

Verifying linearizability: A comparative survey

Modular Verification of Linearizability with Non-Fixed Linearization Points

Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects

Linearizability with Ownership Transfer

Putting Strong Linearizability in Context: Preserving Hyperproperties in Programs that Use Concurrent Objects

Asynchronous Wait-Free Runtime Verification and Enforcement of Linearizability

Causal Linearizability: Compositionality for Partially Ordered Executions

A Compositional Theory of Linearizability

A Simple Way to Verify Linearizability of Concurrent Stacks

Declarative Linearizability Proofs for Descriptor-Based Concurrent Helping Algorithms

Verifying Linearizability of Intel® Software Guard Extensions

Using Concurrent Relational Logic with Helpers for Verifying the AtomFS File System

A Program Logic for Concurrent Objects under Fair Scheduling.

Proving Logical Atomicity using Lock Invariants

Progress of Concurrent Objects

Formal Verification for C Program

Abstraction Logic: The Marriage of Contextual Refinement and Separation Logic

Strong Linearizability using Primitives with Consensus Number 2

Refinement Proofs in Rust Using Ghost Locks

Compositional verification of termination-preserving refinement of concurrent programs