Race Conditions

Praun, Christoph von; Fineman, Jeremy T.; Leiserson, Charles E.; Gallopoulos, Efstratios; Snir, Marc; Heath, Michael R.; Grice, Don; White, Andrew G.; López, Pedro; Meister, Benoit; Vasilache, Nicolas; Wohlford, David; Baskaran, Muthu Manikandan; Leung, Allen; Lethin, Richard; Saltz, Joel; Das, Raja

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09766-4_36

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If A and B execute their codes simultaneously, the value of x seen by both A and B after completion of their codes is 10 although two increments by 5 were performed that is, the value of x should have been 15. This is referred to as a race condition in concurrent or distributed systems where two processes access the shared variable without appropriate synchronization and at least one access changes the variable 39,40 . One way to alleviate this problem is by disallowing any process from accessing the shared variable if another process has already obtained access to the shared variable.…”

Section: Specification Of the Team Formation Protocol: Multiple Initi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal specification and verification of a team formation protocol using TLA⁺

Niyogi,

Nath

2023

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Team formation in an environment where some relevant parameters are not known in advance is a challenging problem. Communicating automata and distributed algorithms have been used to describe protocols for team formation. A high‐level specification provides a mathematical description of a protocol or a program. TLA is a formal specification language designed to provide high‐level specifications of concurrent and distributed systems. The associated model checker known as TLC is capable of model checking the TLA specifications. Recently, formal specification of a team formation protocol is given using TLA when there is a single initiator (an agent or a robot) that initiates the team formation. Using TLA, we examine the formal specification for the multiple initiator situation and demonstrate that a composition technique can yield a single monolithic specification for the multiple initiator situation from the single initiator situation specification. We have used models of varying sizes, and the TLC model checker has confirmed that the protocol's specifications meet certain desired characteristics in each case.

show abstract

Section: Specification Of the Team Formation Protocol: Multiple Initi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal specification and verification of a team formation protocol using TLA⁺

Niyogi,

Nath

2023

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it replaces a write access to a field with a method that accepts an argument with the type compatible with that of the field that has been written on. Besides avoiding programmer mistakes in choosing between field and local variable access, this mutator is principally intended to avoid datarace bugs that are common in concurrent programs due to incorrect synchronization between different threads [66]. CASE BREAKER (CB) This mutator is intended to mitigate the unintended fall-through of control flow in switch-case statements due to missing break or return statements.…”

Section: Dup Ifnonnull Escape Xload N Xreturn Escapementioning

confidence: 99%

Practical program repair via bytecode mutation

Ghanbari¹,

Benton²,

Zhang³

2019

Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis

106

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software debugging is tedious, time-consuming, and even errorprone by itself. So, various automated debugging techniques have been proposed in the literature to facilitate the debugging process. Automated Program Repair (APR) is one of the most recent advances in automated debugging, and can directly produce patches for buggy programs with minimal human intervention. Although various advanced APR techniques (including those that are either search-based or semantic-based) have been proposed, the simplistic mutation-based APR technique, which simply uses pre-defined mutation operators (e.g., changing a>=b into a>b) to mutate programs for finding patches, has not yet been thoroughly studied. In this paper, we implement the first practical bytecode-level APR technique, PraPR, and present the first extensive study on fixing real-world bugs (e.g., Defects4J bugs) using bytecode mutation. The experimental results show that surprisingly even PraPR with only the basic traditional mutators can produce genuine patches for 18 bugs. Furthermore, with our augmented mutators, PraPR is able to produce genuine patches for 43 bugs, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art APR. It is also an order of magnitude faster, indicating a promising future for bytecode-mutation-based APR.

show abstract

Race Conditions

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Formal specification and verification of a team formation protocol using TLA⁺

Formal specification and verification of a team formation protocol using TLA⁺

Practical program repair via bytecode mutation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Race Conditions

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Formal specification and verification of a team formation protocol using TLA+

Formal specification and verification of a team formation protocol using TLA+

Practical program repair via bytecode mutation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Formal specification and verification of a team formation protocol using TLA⁺

Formal specification and verification of a team formation protocol using TLA⁺