[Backport 7.58.x] [NTWK-557] Fix NPM sendpage probes in openSUSE 15rc6

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

Backport 3dd31a5 from #29659.

---

What does this PR do?

Fixes an issue with openSUSE 15 RC 6 where the eBPF tracer wouldn't to start due to a failed validation of the tcp_sendpage probe.

Motivation

Discovered via inbound issue from customer.

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Install the RPM for this branch in an openSUSE VM and start up system-probe via sudo /opt/datadog-agent/embedded/bin/system-probe run. It should not yield the error related to tcp_sendpage anymore.

In addition, I ran the KMT alien tests on openSUSE via the following: (sles15rc6.json is the alien config pointing to SSH for the VM)

inv -e kmt.test --packages=./pkg/network/tracer --run TestTracerSuite/prebuilt/TestTCPRTT --alien-vms=/Users/stuart.geipel/Documents/aliens/sles15rc6.json

With this change, everything but TestTracerSuite/prebuilt/TestTCPRTT passes which is an unrelated flake of offset guessing in prebuilt.

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

[pr-commenter]

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=45620091 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 90ad748

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 45620091 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:

• tests_deb-arm64-py3
• tests_deb-x64-py3
• tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
• tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
• tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
• tests_rpm-arm64-py3
• tests_rpm-x64-py3
• tests_windows-x64

If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help

[pr-commenter]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: f8640224-98f1-4c44-8d40-17bea05baafe Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: 2b9ef4a
Comparison: 90ad748

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	trials	links
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	+0.42	[-0.34, +1.17]	1	Logs
➖	idle	memory utilization	+0.09	[+0.04, +0.15]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.01, +0.01]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	-0.10	[-0.16, -0.03]	1	Logs
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.72	[-0.82, -0.61]	1	Logs
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	-1.27	[-2.10, -0.44]	1	Logs
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	-1.79	[-4.67, +1.10]	1	Logs
➖	pycheck_lots_of_tags	% cpu utilization	-3.44	[-5.99, -0.89]	1	Logs

Bounds Checks

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed
❌	idle	memory_usage	8/10

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".