Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[cluster-agent] Fix CWS Instrumentation webhook label selector and error handling #27117

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 28, 2024

Conversation

Gui774ume
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

This PR tackles 4 issues:

  • Pod Label selection doesn't work OOTB for pods/exec admission selection - this PR implements a check on "admission.datadoghq.com/cws-instrumentation.enabled" manually in the pods/exec admission webhook.
  • During a previous refacto, the pods/exec mutating webhook function for "cws-instrumentation" was mistakenly called twice. This PR removes the unnecessary second call.
  • Error handling during the remote copy was flaky, this PR improves it to make sure that only successful remote copies return no error.
  • By default, cws-instrumentation was copied at the root of the filesystem, but in some cases, the container default user doesn't have write access on /, which is why the default is now to write to /tmp (but it is configurable).

Motivation

This fixes bring us one step closer to enabling this feature by default.

Describe how to test/QA your changes

See #24175

Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Jun 27, 2024

Go Package Import Differences

Baseline: 3945ba0
Comparison: bc749f7

binaryosarchchange
cluster-agentlinuxamd64
+0, -4
-github.com/mitchellh/go-wordwrap
-github.com/moby/term
-k8s.io/kubectl/pkg/util/interrupt
-k8s.io/kubectl/pkg/util/term
cluster-agentlinuxarm64
+0, -4
-github.com/mitchellh/go-wordwrap
-github.com/moby/term
-k8s.io/kubectl/pkg/util/interrupt
-k8s.io/kubectl/pkg/util/term

@Gui774ume Gui774ume force-pushed the will/cws-instrumentation-fixes branch 2 times, most recently from a8edf4a to bc79233 Compare June 27, 2024 13:32
@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Jun 27, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 9d8914a3-aaef-4d91-8090-90628fac3bbe Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: 45fe11b
Comparison: bc79233

Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:

  • ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
  • ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
  • ➖ = no significant change in performance

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI links
pycheck_1000_100byte_tags % cpu utilization +1.36 [-3.50, +6.21] Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.05 [-0.76, +0.86] Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.00, +0.00] Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.33 [-0.38, -0.28] Logs
idle memory utilization -0.42 [-0.45, -0.38] Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization -0.70 [-3.43, +2.03] Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.97 [-13.46, +11.52] Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -2.03 [-2.90, -1.16] Logs

Explanation

A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".

For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:

  1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

  2. Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.

  3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

Copy link
Contributor

@dustmop dustmop left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM for agent-shared-components

@Gui774ume Gui774ume force-pushed the will/cws-instrumentation-fixes branch 2 times, most recently from d543272 to 8b074e4 Compare June 28, 2024 10:54
@Gui774ume Gui774ume force-pushed the will/cws-instrumentation-fixes branch from 8b074e4 to 97eec1f Compare June 28, 2024 10:55
@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Jun 28, 2024

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv create-vm --pipeline-id=37839186 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit bc749f7

@Gui774ume
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Jun 28, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 26m.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 1cf1cce into main Jun 28, 2024
624 of 628 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the will/cws-instrumentation-fixes branch June 28, 2024 14:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants