A highly safe self-stabilizing mutual exclusion algorithm
Information Processing Letters
An exercise in fault-containment: self-stabilizing leader election
Information Processing Letters
Fault-containing self-stabilizing algorithms
PODC '96 Proceedings of the fifteenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Uniform and Self-Stabilizing Token Rings Allowing Unfair Daemon
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems
Error-detecting codes and fault-containing self-stabilization
Information Processing Letters
Fault-containing self-stabilization using priority scheduling
Information Processing Letters
Self-stabilizing systems in spite of distributed control
Communications of the ACM
Analyzing Expected Time by Scheduler-Luck Games
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
A latency optimal superstabilizing mutual exclusion protocol in unidirectional rings
Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing - Self-stabilizing distributed systems
Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing - Self-stabilizing distributed systems
Tolerance to Unbounded Byzantine Faults
SRDS '02 Proceedings of the 21st IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems
Service Time Optimal Self-Stabilizing Token Circulation Protocol on Anonymous Unidrectional Rings
SRDS '02 Proceedings of the 21st IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems
Superstabilizing mutual exclusion
Distributed Computing
How to Improve Safety under Convergence Using Stable Storage
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems
Algorithmic Game Theory
SSS'06 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Stabilization, safety, and security of distributed systems
STACS'99 Proceedings of the 16th annual conference on Theoretical aspects of computer science
Price stabilization in networks: what is an appropriate model?
SSS'11 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Stabilization, safety, and security of distributed systems
Hi-index | 0.00 |
We consider a malicious unfair adversary which generates an undetectable fault by local checks, called an intentional fault. Though the possibility of such a fault has ever been suggested, details of its influence and handling are unknown. We assume the intentional fault in a self-stabilizing mutual exclusion protocol, a hybrid of previously proposed ones that complement each other. In the hybrid protocol, we can cope with the fault by using optional strategies, whether or not sending a minor token, which plays a role of preventing the contamination from spreading. We construct a payoff matrix between a group of privileged processes and an adversary, and consider a multistage two-person zero sum game. We interpret the game in two ways: whether it continues or replays the game after an ME(mutual exclusion)-violating repair, in which more than one unexpected privileges are given. For each case, we evaluate the ability of malicious unfair adversary by using a mixed strategy. Our idea is also considered as a general framework for strengthening an algorithm against an intentional fault.