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

[NPM-3666] Add dmesg to agent flare #32559

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

pimlu
Copy link
Contributor

@pimlu pimlu commented Dec 30, 2024

What does this PR do?

This adds kernel dmesg to the agent flare.

It already existed in the security agent flare, but was not using system-probe - this PR updates it to query as root via system-probe.

Motivation

Dmesg can be useful to diagnose customer issues. This also benefits the security agent because, recent distro releases require root for dmesg. This is controlled by the sysctl kernel.dmesg_restrict. For example, this is enabled in ubuntu 20 because of upstream changes from debian.

Describe how you validated your changes

Agent flare, view ./system-probe/dmesg.log
Security agent flare, view ./dmesg which should still exist, and now it works with kernel.dmesg_restrict=1.

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Would be nice to use the same filepath for both flares, but I don't want to change the security agent flare.

Additional Notes

"time"
)

var klogRegexp = regexp.MustCompile(`<(\d+)>(.*)`)

func readAllDmesg() ([]byte, error) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

readAllDmesg() is relocated from flare/archive_linux.go

return b[:m], nil
}

func parseDmesg(buffer []byte) (string, error) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

parseDmesg() is relocated from flare/archive_linux.go

@pimlu pimlu added the qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests label Dec 30, 2024
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 30, 2024

Uncompressed package size comparison

Comparison with ancestor 9f2238e9938da5cd752bbac74338dffb0605af7f

Diff per package
package diff status size ancestor threshold
datadog-agent-arm64-deb 0.01MB ⚠️ 935.37MB 935.37MB 140.00MB
datadog-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.01MB ⚠️ 944.67MB 944.66MB 140.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.00MB 108.88MB 108.88MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-amd64-deb 0.00MB 78.54MB 78.54MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 78.62MB 78.62MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 78.62MB 78.62MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-arm64-deb 0.00MB 55.75MB 55.75MB 10.00MB
datadog-heroku-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 505.27MB 505.27MB 70.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 113.34MB 113.34MB 10.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-arm64-deb 0.00MB 108.81MB 108.81MB 10.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-rpm -0.00MB 113.41MB 113.41MB 10.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-suse -0.00MB 113.41MB 113.41MB 10.00MB
datadog-agent-amd64-deb -0.01MB 1191.06MB 1191.07MB 140.00MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-rpm -0.01MB 1200.38MB 1200.39MB 140.00MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-suse -0.01MB 1200.38MB 1200.39MB 140.00MB

Decision

⚠️ Warning

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 30, 2024

Test changes on VM

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

inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=51976229 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit f1ca4a7

Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Dec 30, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: b9b948c3-b272-445e-a5f8-389add6414b3

Baseline: 9f2238e
Comparison: f1ca4a7
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.47 [+0.43, +0.51] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.18 [+0.09, +0.26] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput +0.12 [-0.35, +0.59] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput +0.10 [-0.80, +1.01] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.08 [-0.56, +0.72] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput +0.08 [-0.71, +0.86] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput +0.01 [-0.85, +0.87] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.12, +0.11] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.03 [-0.81, +0.75] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput -0.03 [-0.92, +0.86] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput -0.07 [-0.85, +0.71] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.19 [-0.32, -0.07] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization -0.84 [-4.10, +2.42] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.86 [-0.93, -0.79] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -0.94 [-1.63, -0.26] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency lost_bytes 8/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 lost_bytes 9/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs lost_bytes 10/10
quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10

Explanation

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

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

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".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@pimlu pimlu marked this pull request as ready for review January 2, 2025 14:53
@pimlu pimlu requested review from a team as code owners January 2, 2025 14:53
@pimlu pimlu requested a review from misteriaud January 2, 2025 14:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
component/system-probe medium review PR review might take time qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/agent-shared-components team/ebpf-platform
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants