# US 11,442,850 B2 · Identifying software dependencies using controller code models > Agents: this data is available as JSON from the patentgrep API and MCP server — see https://patentgrep.com/llms.txt - Number: US 11,442,850 B2 - Document ID: US11442850B2 - Status: Granted - Kind: B2 - Application number: 17/536,466 - Filed: 2021-11-29 - Published: 2022-03-17 - Granted: 2022-09-13 - Earliest claimed: 2019-03-25 - Assignees: Aurora Labs Ltd. - Applicants: Aurora Labs Ltd. - Inventors: Zohar Fox; Carmit Sahar - Web page: https://patentgrep.com/patent/US11442850B2 ## CPC - G06F 30/33: Design verification, e.g. functional simulation or model checking - G06F 8/34: Graphical or visual programming - G06F 8/65: Updates (security arrangements therefor G06F21/57) - G06F 8/71: Version control (security arrangements therefor G06F21/57); Configuration management - G06F 8/73: Program documentation - G06F 8/75: Structural analysis for program understanding - G06F 11/3604: Analysis of software for verifying properties of programs (testing of software G06F11/3668) - G06F 11/3612: {by runtime analysis (performance monitoring G06F11/3466)} - G06F 11/362: Debugging of software - G06F 11/3692: {for test results analysis} - G06F 16/9014: {hash tables} - G06F 17/18: for evaluating statistical data {, e.g. average values, frequency distributions, probability functions, regression analysis (forecasting specially adapted for a specific administrative, business or logistic context G06Q10/04)} - G06F 18/24: Classification techniques - G06F 21/52: during program execution, e.g. stack integrity {; Preventing unwanted data erasure; Buffer overflow} - G06F 21/563: {by source code analysis} - G06F 21/57: Certifying or maintaining trusted computer platforms, e.g. secure boots or power-downs, version controls, system software checks, secure updates or assessing vulnerabilities - G06F 21/577: {Assessing vulnerabilities and evaluating computer system security} - G06F 21/6218: {to a system of files or objects, e.g. local or distributed file system or database} - G06N 20/00: Machine learning - H04L 9/3247: {involving digital signatures} - G06F 30/15: Vehicle, aircraft or watercraft design - G10H 1/0058: {Transmission between separate instruments or between individual components of a musical system (G10H1/0083 takes precedence)} - H04L 2209/84: Vehicles - G06F: ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING (computer systems based on specific computational models G06N) - G06N: COMPUTING ARRANGEMENTS BASED ON SPECIFIC COMPUTATIONAL MODELS - H04L: TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION (arrangements common to telegraphic and telephonic communication H04M) - G10H: ELECTROPHONIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS; INSTRUMENTS IN WHICH THE TONES ARE GENERATED BY ELECTROMECHANICAL MEANS OR ELECTRONIC GENERATORS, OR IN WHICH THE TONES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM A DATA STORE ## Abstract Disclosed herein are techniques for identifying software dependencies based on functional line-of-code behavior and relation models. Techniques include accessing a first line-of-code behavior and relation model representing execution of functions of a first portion of executable code, the first portion of executable code being associated with a first symbol; detecting a change to the first portion of executable code; constructing, based on the changed first portion of executable code, a second line-of-code behavior and relation model representing execution of functions of the changed first portion of executable code; determining, based on the constructed second model, a dependency between (i) the changed first portion of executable code or the first symbol and (ii) a second symbol; and generating, based on the determined difference, a report identifying the dependency. ## Claims ### Claim 1 A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for identifying software dependencies based on functional models, comprising: constructing, based on a change to first controller code configured for a first controller, a model representing execution of functions on the first controller according to the changed first controller code; determining, based on operating the model remotely from the first controller and a second controller, a dependency between the changed first controller code and second controller code configured for the second controller; determining a change in functionality of the second controller code based on the change to the first controller code; determining a functional equivalence status between the second controller code with the change in functionality and the second controller code without the change in functionality; and generating, based on the determined dependency, a report identifying the functional equivalence status. ### Claim 2 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the model comprises at least one of a variable, buffer, function, call, object, or segment of code. ### Claim 3 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, the operations further comprising determining the dependency by operating the model remotely from the first and second controllers. ### Claim 4 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the first and second controllers are part of a group of electronic control units (ECUs) associated with a vehicle. ### Claim 5 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the model is generated through a machine learning process. ### Claim 6 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the model is generated through a statistical or dynamic process. ### Claim 7 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein: the second controller code with the change in functionality comprises first symbols; the second controller code without the change in functionality comprises second symbols; and determining a functional equivalence status comprises determining a degree of equivalence between the first and second symbols. ### Claim 8 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the report identifies at least one instance of functionality drift. ### Claim 9 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the report includes a warning. ### Claim 10 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the change to the first controller code comprises a simulated change made by a user. ### Claim 11 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first controller or the second controller is a virtual controller. ### Claim 12 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the determined dependency includes a strength of association between symbols of the first controller code and the second controller code. ### Claim 13 (depends on 1) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the first controller is associated with implementing a first function in a system and the second controller is associated with implementing a second function in a system. ### Claim 14 (depends on 13) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein: the system is a vehicle; and the first function and second function are vehicle functions. ### Claim 15 A computer-implemented method for identifying software dependencies based on functional models, the method comprising: constructing, based on a change to first controller code configured for a first controller, a model representing execution of functions on the first controller according to the changed first controller code; determining, based on operating the model remotely from the first controller and a second controller, a dependency between the changed first controller code and second controller code configured for the second controller; determining a change in functionality of the second controller code based on the change to the first controller code; determining a functional equivalence status between the second controller code with the change in functionality and the second controller code without the change in functionality; and generating, based on the determined dependency, a report identifying the functional equivalence status. ### Claim 16 (depends on 15) The computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising determining the dependency by operating the model remotely from the first and second controllers. ### Claim 17 (depends on 15) The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the model is generated through a statistical or dynamic process. ### Claim 18 (depends on 15) The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein: the second controller code with the change in functionality comprises first symbols; the second controller code without the change in functionality comprises second symbols; and determining a functional equivalence status comprises determining a degree of equivalence between the first and second symbols. ### Claim 19 (depends on 15) The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the report identifies at least one instance of functionality drift. ### Claim 20 (depends on 15) The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the change to the first controller code comprises a simulated change made by a user.