If you look at the implementation no thread is ever stopped from completing. If a producing thread was killed mid operation by another malicious thread then the stream is broken. Other threads are never blocked. Other writers can add via a finite number of steps and the stream will back pressure when flow control kicks in. The consumer is never blocked - it simply never sees more messages. The algorithm meets the definition.
Unless I missed it that paper does not not state that the algorithm must cope with a malicious thread to be wait-free.
Try applying your thinking to this other respected MPSC wait-free queue.
http://www.1024cores.net/home/lock-free-algorithms/queues/in...
It's clear that the MPSC design is not wait-free, nor is it lock-free. Dmitry identifies this fact in his initial postings about that design: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lock-free/Vd9xuHrLgg...
""" Push function is blocking wrt consumer. I.e. if producer blocked in (*), then consumer is blocked too. """
Between the XCHG and the update of next. If the producing thread completes the XCHG but fails to update next, all threads will fail to make progress. "Progress" in this case being the producers transferring data to the consumer. Put another way, in this algorithm a single misbehaving thread can prevent all threads from making progress.
Regarding the idea of "maliciousness", specifically if a participant thread is "killed mid-operation". That idea is the very definition of wait-freedom: that all participants complete the algorithm in a bounded number of their own steps, irrespective of the activities of other threads.
The definitions of wait/lock/obstruction freedom are well specified. I suggest the first half of _The Art of Multiprocessor Programming_ (the revised edition!) by Herlihy and Shavit for a deep dive.
So if "killed mid-operation" must be supported then I don't see how many algorithms can be said to make progress. Take for example the Lamport SPSC queue[1], if the producer gets killed mid operation between steps 4 and 5 of the push operation. Then the data is in the queue but the consumer is blocked from ever seeing it with this line of reasoning. The Lamport SPSC queue is considered wait-free by the concurrency community I know. I base my reasoning on this. What if the producer takes a pause for a long time between steps 4 and 5 before continuing?
However if to be wait-free an algorithm must allow all other threads to continue using the data structure, not just continue making progress in other ways by being non-blocking and completing in a finite number of steps, then I stand corrected.
If wait-free must include coping with any thread being killed mid operation is there a term for being lock-free but also having all threads not block and complete in a finite number of steps for their interaction with the algorithm?
In case of the SPSC queue the requirement is that the writer must be able to enqueue new items no matter what the reader does and the reader must be able to dequeue all items for which the enqueue operation succeeded no matter what the writer does afterwards. The presented queue implementation meets this requirements. If the writer fails between steps 4 and 5 the write did not succeed and it does not matter that the reader can not see the item.
What you say about keeping the data structure usable for other threads seems correct to me.
You must not confuse lock-free and not using a lock, these are two different things. An algorithm using locks is a blocking algorithm but using locks is only sufficient, not mandatory. If no process can block other processes unconditionally the algorithm is non-blocking and obstruction-free, lock-free and wait-free are different progress guarantees for non-blocking algorithms in ascending order of strength.
One last point, if you try to obtain a lock and fail to do so you are considered blocked, no matter if you spin, suspend the thread or do unrelated things to waste some time until retrying later.
