redaction des lemmes + preuve
This commit is contained in:
Amaury JOLY
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ We consider a static set $\Pi$ of $n$ processes with known identities, communica
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Synchrony.} The network is asynchronous.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Communication.} Processes can exchange through a Reliable Broadcast ($\RB$) primitive (defined below) which is invoked with the functions $\RBcast(m)$ and $m = \rbreceived()$. There exists a shared object called DenyList ($\DL$) (defined below) that is interfaced with a set $O$ of operations. There exist three types of these operations: $\APPEND(x)$, $\PROVE(x)$ and $\READ()$.
|
||||
\paragraph{Communication.} Processes can exchange through a Reliable Broadcast ($\RB$) primitive (defined below) which is invoked with the functions $\RBcast(m)$ and $m = \rbreceived()$. The Reliable Broadcast is a Byzantine fault-tolerant primitive following Bracha's specification \cite{Bracha1987}: for any message $m$ broadcast by a process $p_j$, every correct process either receives the message $m$ or none at all; moreover, all correct processes that receive a broadcast from $p_j$ for a given sequence number or round receive exactly the same message. This ensures that Byzantine processes cannot send different messages to different correct processes for the same broadcast instance. There exists a shared object called DenyList ($\DL$) (defined below) that is interfaced with a set $O$ of operations. There exist three types of these operations: $\APPEND(x)$, $\PROVE(x)$ and $\READ()$.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Byzantine behaviour}
|
||||
A process is said to exhibit Byzantine behaviour if it deviates arbitrarily from the prescribed algorithm. Such deviations may, for instance, consist in invoking primitives ($\RBcast$, $\APPEND$, $\PROVE$, etc.) with invalid inputs or inputs crafted maliciously, colluding with other Byzantine processes in an attempt to manipulate the system state or violate its guarantees, deliberately delaying or accelerating the delivery of messages to selected nodes so as to disrupt the expected timing of operations, or withholding messages and responses in order to induce inconsistencies in the system state.
|
||||
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ For each $U \in \mathcal{U}$, we instantiate one DenyList object $DL_U$ whose au
|
||||
Combining the cases yields the claimed characterization of invalidity.
|
||||
\end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT-PROVE Anti-Flickering]
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT-PROVE Anti-Flickering]\label{lem:bft-prove-anti-flickering}
|
||||
If the invocation of a operation $op = \BFTPROVE(x)$ by a correct process $p \in \Pi_V$ is invalid, then any $\BFTPROVE(x)$ operation that appears after $op$ in $\Seq$ is invalid.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ For each $U \in \mathcal{U}$, we instantiate one DenyList object $DL_U$ whose au
|
||||
$(i, x) \in R \implies \exists \BFTPROVE_i(x)$
|
||||
\end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT-READ Anti-Flickering]
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT-READ Anti-Flickering]\label{lem:bft-read-anti-flickering}
|
||||
Let $op_1, op_2$ two $\BFTREAD()$ operations that returns respectively $R_1, R_2$. Iff $op_1 \prec op_2$ then $R_2 \subseteq R_1$. Otherwise $R_1 \subseteq R_2$.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -186,25 +186,30 @@ For each $U \in \mathcal{U}$, we instantiate one DenyList object $DL_U$ whose au
|
||||
|
||||
\vspace{0.3em}
|
||||
|
||||
\For{$r = 1, 2, \ldots$}{
|
||||
\For{$r = 1, 2, \ldots$}{\nllabel{alg:main-loop}
|
||||
\textbf{wait until} $\unordered \setminus \ordered \neq \emptyset$\;
|
||||
$S \gets \unordered \setminus \ordered$;
|
||||
$\RBcast(i, \texttt{PROP}, S, r)$\;
|
||||
|
||||
\textbf{wait until} $|\validated(r)| \geq n - t$\;
|
||||
\textbf{wait until} $|\validated(r)| \geq n - t$\;\nllabel{alg:check-validated}
|
||||
|
||||
\ForEach{$j \in \Pi$}{
|
||||
$\BFTAPPEND(\langle j, r\rangle)$\;
|
||||
\BlankLine
|
||||
|
||||
\lForEach{$j \in \Pi$}{
|
||||
$\BFTAPPEND(\langle j, r\rangle)$\;\nllabel{alg:append}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
\ForEach{$j \in \Pi$}{
|
||||
\lForEach{$j \in \Pi$}{
|
||||
$\send(j, \texttt{DONE}, r)$\;
|
||||
}
|
||||
\textbf{wait until} $|\done[r]| \geq n - t$\;
|
||||
|
||||
$\winners[r] \gets \validated(r)$\;
|
||||
\BlankLine
|
||||
|
||||
\textbf{wait until} $|\done[r]| \geq n - t$\;\nllabel{alg:check-done}
|
||||
\textbf{wait until} $\forall j \in \winners[r],\ \prop[r][j] \neq \bot$ \textbf{ with } $\winners[r] \gets \validated(r)$\;
|
||||
|
||||
\BlankLine
|
||||
|
||||
\textbf{wait until} $\forall j \in \winners[r],\ \prop[r][j] \neq \bot$\;
|
||||
$M \gets \bigcup_{j \in \winners[r]} \prop[r][j]$\;\nllabel{code:Mcompute}
|
||||
$\ordered \gets \ordered \cdot \ordered(M)$\;
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -238,89 +243,89 @@ For each $U \in \mathcal{U}$, we instantiate one DenyList object $DL_U$ whose au
|
||||
\vspace{0.3em}
|
||||
|
||||
\Upon{$\ABdeliver()$}{
|
||||
\If{$\ordered \setminus \delivered = \emptyset$}{
|
||||
\lIf{$\ordered \setminus \delivered = \emptyset$}{
|
||||
\Return{$\bot$}
|
||||
}
|
||||
let $m$ be the first message in $\ordered \setminus \delivered$\;
|
||||
let $m$ be the first message in $(\ordered \setminus \delivered)$\;
|
||||
$\delivered \gets \delivered \cdot \{m\}$\;
|
||||
\Return{$m$}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
\end{algorithm}
|
||||
|
||||
\textbf{Everything below has to be updated}
|
||||
% \textbf{Everything below has to be updated}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{definition}[BFT Closed round for $k$]
|
||||
Given $Seq^{k}$ the linearization of the $\BFTDL$ $Y[k]$, a round $r \in \mathcal{R}$ is \emph{closed} in $\Seq$ iff there exist at least $n - f$ distinct processes $j \in \Pi$ such that $\BFTAPPEND_j(r)$ appears in $\Seq^k$. Let call $\BFTAPPEND(r)^\star$ the $(n-f)^{th}$ $\BFTAPPEND(r)$.
|
||||
\end{definition}
|
||||
% \begin{definition}[BFT Closed round for $k$]
|
||||
% Given $Seq^{k}$ the linearization of the $\BFTDL$ $Y[k]$, a round $r \in \mathcal{R}$ is \emph{closed} in $\Seq$ iff there exist at least $n - f$ distinct processes $j \in \Pi$ such that $\BFTAPPEND_j(r)$ appears in $\Seq^k$. Let call $\BFTAPPEND(r)^\star$ the $(n-f)^{th}$ $\BFTAPPEND(r)$.
|
||||
% \end{definition}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{definition}[BFT Closed round]\label{def:bft-closed-round}
|
||||
A round $r \in \mathcal{R}$ is \emph{closed} iff for all $\DL[k]$, $r$ is closed in $\Seq^k$.
|
||||
\end{definition}
|
||||
% \begin{definition}[BFT Closed round]\label{def:bft-closed-round}
|
||||
% A round $r \in \mathcal{R}$ is \emph{closed} iff for all $\DL[k]$, $r$ is closed in $\Seq^k$.
|
||||
% \end{definition}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Proof of correctness}
|
||||
% \subsection{Proof of correctness}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{remark}[BFT Stable round closure]\label{rem:bft-stable-round-closure}
|
||||
If a round $r$ is closed, no more $\BFTPROVE(r)$ can be valid and thus linearized. In other words, once $\BFTAPPEND(r)^\star$ is linearized, no more process can make a proof on round $r$, and the set of valid proofs for round $r$ is fixed. Therefore $\Winners_r$ is fixed.
|
||||
\end{remark}
|
||||
% \begin{remark}[BFT Stable round closure]\label{rem:bft-stable-round-closure}
|
||||
% If a round $r$ is closed, no more $\BFTPROVE(r)$ can be valid and thus linearized. In other words, once $\BFTAPPEND(r)^\star$ is linearized, no more process can make a proof on round $r$, and the set of valid proofs for round $r$ is fixed. Therefore $\Winners_r$ is fixed.
|
||||
% \end{remark}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{proof}
|
||||
By definition $r$ closed means that for all process $p_i$, there exist at least $n - f$ distinct processes $j \in \Pi$ such that $\BFTAPPEND_j(r)$ appears in $\Seq^k$. By BFT-PROVE Validity, any subsequent $\BFTPROVE(r)$ is invalid because at least $n - f$ processes already invoked a valid $\BFTAPPEND(r)$ before it. Thus no new valid $\BFTPROVE(r)$ can be linearized after $\BFTAPPEND(r)^\star$. Hence the set of valid proofs for round $r$ is fixed, and so is $\Winners_r$.
|
||||
\end{proof}
|
||||
% \begin{proof}
|
||||
% By definition $r$ closed means that for all process $p_i$, there exist at least $n - f$ distinct processes $j \in \Pi$ such that $\BFTAPPEND_j(r)$ appears in $\Seq^k$. By BFT-PROVE Validity, any subsequent $\BFTPROVE(r)$ is invalid because at least $n - f$ processes already invoked a valid $\BFTAPPEND(r)$ before it. Thus no new valid $\BFTPROVE(r)$ can be linearized after $\BFTAPPEND(r)^\star$. Hence the set of valid proofs for round $r$ is fixed, and so is $\Winners_r$.
|
||||
% \end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT Across rounds]\label{lem:bft-across-rounds}
|
||||
For any $r, r'$ such that $r < r'$, if $r'$ is closed, $r$ is also closed.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
% \begin{lemma}[BFT Across rounds]\label{lem:bft-across-rounds}
|
||||
% For any $r, r'$ such that $r < r'$, if $r'$ is closed, $r$ is also closed.
|
||||
% \end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{proof}
|
||||
Let $r \in \mathcal{R}$. By \cref{def:bft-closed-round}, if $r + 1$ is closed, then for all $\DL[k]$, $r + 1$ is closed in $\Seq^k$. By the implementation, a process can only invoke $\BFTAPPEND(r + 1)$ after observing at least $n - f$ valid $\BFTPROVE(r)$, which means that for all $\DL[k]$, $r$ is closed in $\Seq^k$. Hence by \cref{def:bft-closed-round}, $r$ is closed.
|
||||
% \begin{proof}
|
||||
% Let $r \in \mathcal{R}$. By \cref{def:bft-closed-round}, if $r + 1$ is closed, then for all $\DL[k]$, $r + 1$ is closed in $\Seq^k$. By the implementation, a process can only invoke $\BFTAPPEND(r + 1)$ after observing at least $n - f$ valid $\BFTPROVE(r)$, which means that for all $\DL[k]$, $r$ is closed in $\Seq^k$. Hence by \cref{def:bft-closed-round}, $r$ is closed.
|
||||
|
||||
Because $r$ is monotonically increasing, we can reccursively apply the same argument to conclude that for any $r, r'$ such that $r < r'$, if $r'$ is closed, $r$ is also closed.
|
||||
\end{proof}
|
||||
% Because $r$ is monotonically increasing, we can reccursively apply the same argument to conclude that for any $r, r'$ such that $r < r'$, if $r'$ is closed, $r$ is also closed.
|
||||
% \end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT Progress]\label{lem:bft_progress}
|
||||
For any correct process $p_i$ such that
|
||||
\[
|
||||
\received \setminus (\delivered \cup (\cup_{r' < r} \cup_{j \in W[r'] \prop[r'][j]})) \neq \emptyset
|
||||
\]
|
||||
with $r$ the highest closed round in the $\DL$ linearization. Eventually $r+1$ will be closed.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
% \begin{lemma}[BFT Progress]\label{lem:bft_progress}
|
||||
% For any correct process $p_i$ such that
|
||||
% \[
|
||||
% \received \setminus (\delivered \cup (\cup_{r' < r} \cup_{j \in W[r'] \prop[r'][j]})) \neq \emptyset
|
||||
% \]
|
||||
% with $r$ the highest closed round in the $\DL$ linearization. Eventually $r+1$ will be closed.
|
||||
% \end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT Winners invariant]\label{lem:bft-winners-invariant}
|
||||
For any closed round $r$, define
|
||||
\[
|
||||
\Winners_r = \{j: \BFTPROVE_j(r) \prec \BFTAPPEND^\star(r)\}
|
||||
\]
|
||||
called the unique set of winners of round $r$.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
% \begin{lemma}[BFT Winners invariant]\label{lem:bft-winners-invariant}
|
||||
% For any closed round $r$, define
|
||||
% \[
|
||||
% \Winners_r = \{j: \BFTPROVE_j(r) \prec \BFTAPPEND^\star(r)\}
|
||||
% \]
|
||||
% called the unique set of winners of round $r$.
|
||||
% \end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT n-f lower-bounded Winners]
|
||||
Let $r$ a closed round, $|W[r]| \geq n-f$.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
% \begin{lemma}[BFT n-f lower-bounded Winners]
|
||||
% Let $r$ a closed round, $|W[r]| \geq n-f$.
|
||||
% \end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{remark}\label{rem:correct-in-winners}
|
||||
Because we assume $n \geq 2f+ 1$, if $|W[r]| \geq n-f$ at least 1 correct have to be in $W[r]$ to progress.
|
||||
\end{remark}
|
||||
% \begin{remark}\label{rem:correct-in-winners}
|
||||
% Because we assume $n \geq 2f+ 1$, if $|W[r]| \geq n-f$ at least 1 correct have to be in $W[r]$ to progress.
|
||||
% \end{remark}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT Winners must purpose]\label{lem:bft-winners-purpose}
|
||||
Let $r$ a closed round, for all process $p_j$ such that $j \in W[r]$, $p_j$ must have executed $\RBcast(j, PROP, \_, r)$ and hence any correct will eventually set $\prop[r][j]$ to a non-$\bot$ value.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
% \begin{lemma}[BFT Winners must purpose]\label{lem:bft-winners-purpose}
|
||||
% Let $r$ a closed round, for all process $p_j$ such that $j \in W[r]$, $p_j$ must have executed $\RBcast(j, PROP, \_, r)$ and hence any correct will eventually set $\prop[r][j]$ to a non-$\bot$ value.
|
||||
% \end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT Messages Incariant]\label{lem:bft-messages-invariant}
|
||||
For any closed round $r$ and any correct process $p_i$ such that $\forall j \in \Winners_r$: $\prop^{(i)}[r][j] \neq \bot$ define
|
||||
\[
|
||||
\Messages_r = \cup_{j \in \Winners_r} prop^{(i)}[r][j]
|
||||
\]
|
||||
as the set of messages proposed by the winners of round $r$
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
% \begin{lemma}[BFT Messages Incariant]\label{lem:bft-messages-invariant}
|
||||
% For any closed round $r$ and any correct process $p_i$ such that $\forall j \in \Winners_r$: $\prop^{(i)}[r][j] \neq \bot$ define
|
||||
% \[
|
||||
% \Messages_r = \cup_{j \in \Winners_r} prop^{(i)}[r][j]
|
||||
% \]
|
||||
% as the set of messages proposed by the winners of round $r$
|
||||
% \end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT EVentual proposal closure]\label{lem:bft-eventual-proposal-closure}
|
||||
If a correct process $p_i$ define $M$ at line~\ref{code:Mcompute}, then for every $j \in \Winners_r$, $\prop^{(i)}[r][j] \neq \bot$.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
% \begin{lemma}[BFT EVentual proposal closure]\label{lem:bft-eventual-proposal-closure}
|
||||
% If a correct process $p_i$ define $M$ at line~\ref{code:Mcompute}, then for every $j \in \Winners_r$, $\prop^{(i)}[r][j] \neq \bot$.
|
||||
% \end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[BFT Unique proposal per sender per round]\label{lem:bft-unique-proposal}
|
||||
For any round $r$ and any process $p_i$, if $p_i$ invokes two $\RBcast$ call for the same round, such that $\RBcast(i, PROP, S, r) \prec \RBcast(i, PROP, S', r)$. Then for any correct process $p_j$, $\prop^{(j)}[r][i] \in \{\bot, S\}$
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
% \begin{lemma}[BFT Unique proposal per sender per round]\label{lem:bft-unique-proposal}
|
||||
% For any round $r$ and any process $p_i$, if $p_i$ invokes two $\RBcast$ call for the same round, such that $\RBcast(i, PROP, S, r) \prec \RBcast(i, PROP, S', r)$. Then for any correct process $p_j$, $\prop^{(j)}[r][i] \in \{\bot, S\}$
|
||||
% \end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -391,6 +396,103 @@ For each $U \in \mathcal{U}$, we instantiate one DenyList object $DL_U$ whose au
|
||||
% Since $p_i$ is correct, seeing that $m \in \prop[r'][j]$ for some $j \in W_{r'}$ implies that $p_i$ received a $Rdeliver(j, \texttt{PROP}, S, r')$ message from $p_j$ such that $m \in S$. And because $p_j$ is in $W_{r'}$, at least $n - f$ correct processes invoked a valid $Y[j].\BFTPROVE(r')$ before the round $r'$ were closed. By the reliable broadcast properties, the $Rdeliver(j, \texttt{PROP}, S, r')$ message will eventually be delivered to every correct process, hence eventually for any correct process $m \in \prop[r'][j]$ with $j \in W_{r'}$. Hence $m$ will eventually be included in the set $\Messages_{r'}$ defined in \Cref{def:bft-message-invariant} and thus eventually be ADelivered by any correct process.
|
||||
% \end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Correctness Lemmas}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{definition}[Closed Round]
|
||||
A round $r \in \mathcal{R}$ is said to be \emph{closed} for a correct process $p_i$ if at the moment $p_i$ computes $\winners[r]$, it satisfies $|\{k : (k, r) \in \BFTREAD()\}| \geq n - t$.
|
||||
\end{definition}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[Round Monotonicity]\label{lem:round-monotonicity}
|
||||
If a round $r$ is closed, then every round $r_1 < r$ is also closed.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{proof}
|
||||
\textbf{Base:} $r = 0$. Suppose round $1$ is closed, the set $\{r' \in \mathcal{R}: r' < r\}$ is empty, so the claim holds.
|
||||
|
||||
\textbf{Inductive step:} Let $r \geq 1$. Assume that the property holds for all rounds $r' < r$: whenever round $r'$ is closed, all rounds $r_2 < r'$ are also closed. We show that if round $r$ is closed, then all rounds $r_1 < r$ are closed.
|
||||
|
||||
Suppose round $r$ is closed. This means at least one correct process $p_i$ has reached line \ref{alg:check-validated} and satisfied the condition $|\validated(r)| \geq n - t$. Consequently, $p_i$ has invoked $\BFTAPPEND(\langle j, r \rangle)$ for each $j \in \Pi$ at line \ref{alg:append}. Since these operations are invoked by a correct process, and they depend on valid proofs in the byzantine fault tolerant deny list, at least one of these operations must have succeeded in the DL object.
|
||||
|
||||
Moreover, by the algorithm structure, a correct process can only reach the beginning of round $r$ after completing round $r-1$. In particular, process $p_i$ reaches line \ref{alg:main-loop} for round $r$ only after having completed round $r-1$, which requires the process to have observed at least $|\done[r-1]| \geq n - t$ (line \ref{alg:check-done} for round $r-1$). This condition can only be satisfied if round $r-1$ is closed: at least $n - t$ processes must have issued DONE messages, and since $n > 3f$, at least one of these is correct.
|
||||
|
||||
Since $n - t > 2f + 1$, among the $n - t$ processes satisfying the condition for round $r-1$, at least one is correct. A correct process that issued a DONE message for round $r-1$ must have previously completed its execution of lines \ref{alg:append} for round $r-1$, which in turn required observing $|\validated(r-1)| \geq n - t$ from line \ref{alg:check-validated}. Thus, round $r-1$ is closed.
|
||||
|
||||
Now, considering any round $r_1 < r-1$: by the inductive hypothesis applied to round $r-1$, since round $r-1$ is closed and $r_1 < r-1$, we have that $r_1$ is also closed.
|
||||
|
||||
By strong induction, if round $r$ is closed, all rounds $r_1 < r$ are closed.
|
||||
\end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[Eventual Closure]\label{lem:eventual-closure}
|
||||
For any correct process $p_i$, if $\unordered \setminus \ordered \neq \emptyset$ and if $r$ is the highest closed round observed by $p_i$, then eventually round $r+1$ will be closed with $|\winners[r+1]| \geq n - t$.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[Uniqueness of Winners' Proposals]\label{lem:unique-proposal}
|
||||
For any closed round $r$ and any process $p_j \in \winners[r]$, there exists a unique set $S_j \subseteq \mathcal{M}$ such that every correct process $p_i$ that has received a reliable delivery of a $\texttt{PROP}$ message from $p_j$ for round $r$ receives exactly this set $S_j$.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{proof}
|
||||
Let $r$ be a closed round and $p_j \in \winners[r]$. Since $j \in \winners[r]$, it means that $(j, r) \in \BFTREAD()$, i.e., at least $t+1$ distinct processes have invoked a valid $\BFTPROVE(\langle j, r \rangle)$ before the round $r$ closed.
|
||||
|
||||
By the algorithm, a correct process $p_i$ invokes $\BFTPROVE(\langle j, r \rangle)$ only upon receiving a reliable delivery of a $\texttt{PROP}$ message from $p_j$ for round $r$ at line \ref{alg:append}. Let $S_j^{(i)}$ denote the set received by $p_i$.
|
||||
|
||||
Since at least $t+1$ distinct processes have performed a valid $\BFTPROVE(\langle j, r \rangle)$, and since $t < n/3$, at least one of these processes is correct. Thus, at least one correct process must have received a reliable broadcast from $p_j$ for round $r$.
|
||||
|
||||
Now, by Bracha's Byzantine Reliable Broadcast specification \cite{Bracha1987}, for any message broadcast instance by process $p_j$ in round $r$, all correct processes that deliver this broadcast either receive the identical message or none at all. Formally, for all correct processes $p_i, p_i'$ that received a delivery from $p_j$ for round $r$, we have $S_j^{(i)} = S_j^{(i')}$.
|
||||
|
||||
Therefore, there exists a unique set $S_j$ such that every correct process $p_i$ that receives a reliable delivery from $p_j$ for round $r$ receives exactly $S_j$.
|
||||
\end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[Winners Stability]\label{lem:winners-stability}
|
||||
For any closed round $r$, the set $\winners[r]$ is stable.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{proof}
|
||||
Let $r$ be a closed round. By definition, a closed round $r$ means that at least one correct process $p_i$ has observed $|\{k : (k, r) \in \BFTREAD()\}| \geq n - t$ and computed $\winners[r]$ at line \ref{alg:check-done}.
|
||||
|
||||
When round $r$ becomes closed, this implies that at least $n - t$ distinct processes have invoked $\BFTAPPEND(\langle j, r \rangle)$ for $j \in \Pi$ (by the algorithm structure, since $\done[r]$ contains DONE messages from processes that completed line \ref{alg:append}). Since $n > 3f$, we have $n - t > 2f + 1 > t + 1$.
|
||||
|
||||
Consider a fixed $j \in \Pi$. Since at least $n - t > t + 1$ processes have invoked a valid $\BFTAPPEND(\langle j, r \rangle)$, by \cref{lem:bft-prove-validity}, any subsequent invocation of $\BFTPROVE(\langle j, r \rangle)$ will be invalid.
|
||||
|
||||
By \cref{lem:bft-prove-anti-flickering}, once a $\BFTPROVE(\langle j, r \rangle)$ operation becomes invalid, all subsequent $\BFTPROVE(\langle j, r \rangle)$ operations are also invalid.
|
||||
|
||||
This holds for all $j \in \Pi$. Therefore, after the round $r$ is closed, the set of valid $\BFTPROVE(\langle j, r \rangle)$ operations for each $j$ cannot grow. By \cref{lem:bft-read-anti-flickering}, any subsequent $\BFTREAD()$ invocation will not return any new $(k, r)$ pairs beyond those already returned. Thus, $\winners[r] = \{j : (j, r) \in \BFTREAD()\}$ becomes stable and cannot change.
|
||||
|
||||
Since this reasoning applies to all correct processes that compute $\winners[r]$ after round $r$ is closed, all correct processes will compute the same stable set $\winners[r]$.
|
||||
\end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[Message Content Invariance]\label{lem:message-content-invariance}
|
||||
For any closed round $r$ and any correct process $p_i$, the set $M$ computed at line \ref{code:Mcompute} by $p_i$ is identical to the set computed by any other correct process $p_j$ for the same round $r$.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{proof}
|
||||
Let $r$ be a closed round and let $p_i, p_{i'}$ be two correct processes. By the algorithm, both processes compute $M$ as:
|
||||
\[
|
||||
M^{(i)} = \bigcup_{j \in \winners[r]} \prop^{(i)}[r][j]
|
||||
\]
|
||||
and
|
||||
\[
|
||||
M^{(i')} = \bigcup_{j \in \winners[r]} \prop^{(i')}[r][j]
|
||||
\]
|
||||
at line \ref{code:Mcompute}.
|
||||
|
||||
By \cref{lem:winners-stability}, the set $\winners[r]$ is stable once round $r$ is closed. Therefore, both $p_i$ and $p_{i'}$ compute the same set of winners $\winners[r]$.
|
||||
|
||||
Now, consider any winner $j \in \winners[r]$. By \cref{lem:unique-proposal}, there exists a unique set $S_j \subseteq \mathcal{M}$ such that every correct process that receives a reliable delivery of a $\texttt{PROP}$ message from $p_j$ for round $r$ receives exactly $S_j$.
|
||||
|
||||
By the algorithm, each correct process stores this received set in its local variable: $\prop^{(i)}[r][j] = S_j$ and $\prop^{(i')}[r][j] = S_j$.
|
||||
|
||||
Since both processes compute the union over the same set of winners, and each winner's proposal is identical for all correct processes:
|
||||
\[
|
||||
M^{(i)} = \bigcup_{j \in \winners[r]} \prop^{(i)}[r][j] = \bigcup_{j \in \winners[r]} S_j = \bigcup_{j \in \winners[r]} \prop^{(i')}[r][j] = M^{(i')}
|
||||
\]
|
||||
|
||||
Therefore, all correct processes compute the same set $M$ for any closed round $r$.
|
||||
\end{proof}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{lemma}[Total Order]\label{lem:total-order}
|
||||
For any two correct processes $p_i$ and $p_j$, the sequence $\ordered$ maintained locally by $p_i$ and the sequence maintained by $p_j$ contain the same messages in the same order, provided that both have reached the same set of closed rounds.
|
||||
\end{lemma}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{theorem}
|
||||
The algorithm implements a BFT Atomic Reliable Broadcast.
|
||||
\end{theorem}
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user