arXiv subjects

Damien Imbs

Publications and source records attributed to Damien Imbs.

11 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2022

Election in Fully Anonymous Shared Memory Systems: Tight Space Bounds and Algorithms

This article addresses election in fully anonymous systems made up of $n$ asynchronous processes that communicate through atomic read-write registers or atomic read-modify-write registers. Given an integer $d\in\{1,\dots, n-1\}$, two elections problems are considered: $d$-election (at least one and at most $d$ processes are elected) and exact $d$-election (exactly $d$ processes are elected). Full anonymity means that both the processes and the shared registers are anonymous. Memory anonymity means that the processes may disagree on the names of the shared registers. That is, the same register name $A$ can denote different registers for different processes, and the register name $A$ used by a process and the register name $B$ used by another process can address the same shared register.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2021

Trading off $t$-Resilience for Efficiency in Asynchronous Byzantine Reliable Broadcast

This paper presents a simple and efficient reliable broadcast algorithm for asynchronous message-passing systems made up of $n$ processes, among which up to $t<n/5$ may behave arbitrarily (Byzantine processes). This algorithm requires two communication steps and $n^2-1$ messages. When compared to Bracha's algorithm, which is resilience optimal ($t<n/3$) and requires three communication steps and $2n^2-n-1$ messages, the proposed algorithm shows an interesting tradeoff between communication efficiency and $t$-resilience.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2019

Mutex-based Desanonymization of an Anonymous Read/Write Memory

Anonymous shared memory is a memory in which processes use different names for the same shared read/write register. As an example, a shared register named $A$ by a process $p$ and a shared register named $B$ by another process $q$ can correspond to the very same register $X$, and similarly for the names $B$ at $p$ and $A$ at $q$ which can correspond to the same register $Y\neq X$. Hence, there is a permanent disagreement on the register names among the processes. This new notion of anonymity was recently introduced by G. Taubenfeld (PODC 2017), who presented several memory-anonymous algorithms and impossibility results. This paper introduces a new problem (new to our knowledge), that consists in "desanonymizing" an anonymous shared memory. To this end, it presents an algorithm that, starting with a shared memory made up of $m$ anonymous read/write atomic registers (i.e., there is no a priori agreement on their names), allows each process to compute a local addressing mapping, such that all the processes agree on the names of each register. The proposed construction is based on an underlying deadlock-free mutex algorithm for $n\geq 2$ processes (recently proposed in a paper co-authored by some of the authors of this paper), and consequently inherits its necessary and sufficient condition on the size $m$ of the anonymous memory, namely $m$ must belongs to the set $M(n)=\{m:~$ such that $\forall~ \ell: 1<\ell \leq n:~ \gcd(\ell,m)=1\}\setminus \{1\}$. This algorithm, which is also symmetric in the sense process identities can only be compared by equality, requires the participation of all the processes; hence it can be part of the system initialization. Last but not least, the proposed algorithm has a first-class noteworthy property, namely, its simplicity.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2018

Optimal Memory-Anonymous Symmetric Deadlock-Free Mutual Exclusion

The notion of an anonymous shared memory (recently introduced in PODC 2017) considers that processes use different names for the same memory location. Hence, there is permanent disagreement on the location names among processes. In this context, the PODC paper presented -among other results- a symmetric deadlock-free mutual exclusion (mutex) algorithm for two processes and a necessary condition on the size $m$ of the anonymous memory for the existence of a symmetric deadlock-free mutex algorithm in an $n$-process system. This condition states that $m$ must be greater than $1$ and belong to the set $M(n)=\{m:\forall~\ell:1<\ell\leq n:~\gcd(\ell,m)=1\}$ (symmetric means that, while each process has its own identity, process identities can only be compared with equality). The present paper answers several open problems related to symmetric deadlock-free mutual exclusion in an $n$-process system ($n\geq 2$) where the processes communicate through $m$ registers. It first presents two algorithms. The first considers that the registers are anonymous read/write atomic registers and works for any $m$ greater than $1$ and belonging to the set $M(n)$. It thus shows that this condition on $m$ is both necessary and sufficient. The second algorithm considers anonymous read/modify/write atomic registers. It assumes that $m\in M(n)$. These algorithms differ in their design principles and their costs (measured as the number of registers which must contain the identity of a process to allow it to enter the critical section). The paper also shows that the condition $m\in M(n)$ is necessary for deadlock-free mutex on top of anonymous read/modify/write atomic registers. It follows that, when $m>1$, $m\in M(n)$ is a tight characterization of the size of the anonymous shared memory needed to solve deadlock-free mutex, be the anonymous registers read/write or read/modify/write.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2017

Progress-Space Tradeoffs in Single-Writer Memory Implementations

Most algorithms designed for shared-memory distributed systems assume the single-writer multi-reader (SWMR) setting where each process is provided with a unique register readable by all. In a system where computation is performed by a bounded number n of processes coming from a very large (possibly unbounded) set of potential participants, the assumption of a SWMR memory is no longer reasonable. If only a bounded number of multi-writer multi-reader (MWMR) registers are provided, we cannot rely on an a priori assignment of processes to registers. In this setting, simulating SWMR memory, or equivalently, ensuring stable writing (i.e., every written value persists in the memory), is desirable. In this paper, we propose a SWMR simulation that adapts the number of MWMR registers used to the desired progress condition. For any given k from 1 to n, we present an algorithm that uses only n+k-1 registers to simulate a k-lock-free SWMR memory. We also give a matching lower bound of n+1 registers required for the case of 2-lock-freedom, which supports our conjectures that the algorithm is space-optimal. Our lower bound holds for the strictly weaker progress condition of 2-obstruction-freedom, which suggests that the space complexity for k-obstruction-free and k-lock-free SWMR simulations might coincide.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2017

Set-Constrained Delivery Broadcast: Definition, Abstraction Power, and Computability Limits

This paper introduces a new communication abstraction, called Set-Constrained Delivery Broadcast (SCD-broadcast), whose aim is to provide its users with an appropriate abstraction level when they have to implement objects or distributed tasks in an asynchronous message-passing system prone to process crash failures. This abstraction allows each process to broadcast messages and deliver a sequence of sets of messages in such a way that, if a process delivers a set of messages including a message m and later delivers a set of messages including a message m ' , no process delivers first a set of messages including m ' and later a set of message including m. After having presented an algorithm implementing SCD-broadcast, the paper investigates its programming power and its computability limits. On the "power" side it presents SCD-broadcast-based algorithms, which are both simple and efficient, building objects (such as snapshot and conflict-free replicated data), and distributed tasks. On the "computability limits" side it shows that SCD-broadcast and read/write registers are computationally equivalent.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2017

Which Broadcast Abstraction Captures $k$-Set Agreement?

It is well-known that consensus (one-set agreement) and total order broadcast are equivalent in asynchronous systems prone to process crash failures. Considering wait-free systems, this article addresses and answers the following question: which is the communication abstraction that "captures" $k$-set agreement? To this end, it introduces a new broadcast communication abstraction, called $k$-BO-Broadcast, which restricts the disagreement on the local deliveries of the messages that have been broadcast ($1$-BO-Broadcast boils down to total order broadcast). Hence, in this context, $k=1$ is not a special number, but only the first integer in an increasing integer sequence. This establishes a new "correspondence" between distributed agreement problems and communication abstractions, which enriches our understanding of the relations linking fundamental issues of fault-tolerant distributed computing.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2017

Another Look at the Implementation of Read/write Registers in Crash-prone Asynchronous Message-Passing Systems (Extended Version)

" Yet another paper on " the implementation of read/write registers in crash-prone asynchronous message-passing systems! Yes..., but, differently from its predecessors, this paper looks for a communication abstraction which captures the essence of such an implementation in the same sense that total order broadcast can be associated with consensus, or message causal delivery can be associated with causal read/write registers. To this end, the paper introduces a new communication abstraction, named SCD-broadcast (SCD standing for " Set Constrained Delivery "), which, instead of a single message, delivers to processes sets of messages (whose size can be arbitrary), such that the sequences of message sets delivered to any two processes satisfies some constraints. The paper then shows that: (a) SCD-broadcast allows for a very simple implementation of a snapshot object (and consequently also of atomic read/write registers) in crash-prone asynchronous message-passing systems, (b) SCD-broadcast can be built from snapshot objects (hence SCD-broadcast and snapshot objects --or read/write registers-- are " computationally equivalent "), (c) SCD-broadcast can be built in message-passing systems where any minority of processes may crash (which is the weakest assumption on the number of possible process crashes needed to implement a read/write register).

cs.DC↗

arXiv2016

From Byzantine Failures to Crash Failures in Message-Passing Systems: a BG Simulation-based approach

The BG-simulation is a powerful reduction algorithm designed for asynchronous read/write crash-prone systems. It allows a set of $(t+1)$ asynchronous sequential processes to wait-free simulate (i.e., despite the crash of up to $t$ of them) an arbitrary number $n$ of processes under the assumption that at most $t$ of them may crash. The BG simulation shows that, in read/write systems, the crucial parameter is not the number $n$ of processes, but the upper bound $t$ on the number of process crashes. The paper extends the concept of BG simulation to asynchronous message-passing systems prone to Byzantine failures. Byzantine failures are the most general type of failure: a faulty process can exhibit any arbitrary behavior. Because of this, they are also the most difficult to analyze and to handle algorithmically. The main contribution of the paper is a signature-free reduction of Byzantine failures to crash failures. Assuming $t<\min(n',n/3)$, the paper presents an algorithm that simulates a system of $n'$ processes where up to $t$ may crash, on top of a basic system of $n$ processes where up to $t$ may be Byzantine. While topological techniques have been used to relate the computability of Byzantine failure-prone systems to that of crash failure-prone ones, this simulation is the first, to our knowledge, that establishes this relation directly, in an algorithmic way. In addition to extending the basic BG simulation to message-passing systems and failures more severe than process crashes, being modular and direct, this simulation provides us with a deeper insight in the nature and understanding of crash and Byzantine failures in the context of asynchronous message-passing systems. Moreover, it also allows crash-tolerant algorithms, designed for asynchronous read/write systems, to be executed on top of asynchronous message-passing systems prone to Byzantine failures.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2015

A Necessary Condition for Byzantine $k$-Set Agreement

This short paper presents a necessary condition for Byzantine $k$-set agreement in (synchronous or asynchronous) message-passing systems and asynchronous shared memory systems where the processes communicate through atomic single-writer multi-reader registers. It gives a proof, which is particularly simple, that $k$-set agreement cannot be solved $t$-resiliently in an $n$-process system when $n \leq 2t + \frac{t}{k}$. This bound is tight for the case $k=1$ (Byzantine consensus) in synchronous message-passing systems.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2011

Failure Detectors in Homonymous Distributed Systems (with an Application to Consensus)

This paper addresses the consensus problem in homonymous distributed systems where processes are prone to crash failures and have no initial knowledge of the system membership ("homonymous" means that several processes may have the same identifier). New classes of failure detectors suited to these systems are first defined. Among them, the classes HΩ and HΣ are introduced that are the homonymous counterparts of the classes Ω and Σ, respectively. (Recall that the pair <Ω,Σ> defines the weakest failure detector to solve consensus.) Then, the paper shows how HΩ and HΣ can be implemented in homonymous systems without membership knowledge (under different synchrony requirements). Finally, two algorithms are presented that use these failure detectors to solve consensus in homonymous asynchronous systems where there is no initial knowledge of the membership. One algorithm solves consensus with , while the other uses only HΩ, but needs a majority of correct processes. Observe that the systems with unique identifiers and anonymous systems are extreme cases of homonymous systems from which follows that all these results also apply to these systems. Interestingly, the new failure detector class HΩ can be implemented with partial synchrony, while the analogous class AΩ defined for anonymous systems can not be implemented (even in synchronous systems). Hence, the paper provides us with the first proof showing that consensus can be solved in anonymous systems with only partial synchrony (and a majority of correct processes).

cs.DC↗