[AGENTRUN-1319][incident-55119] Scrub additional endpoints#51331
[AGENTRUN-1319][incident-55119] Scrub additional endpoints#51331nathan-b wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
There are two formats for additional endpoints / dual shipping, and we only scrub one format. Add scrubbing for the second format, which doesn't give useful hints in the YAML keys so we have to get a little creative.
nathan-b
added
changelog/no-changelog
github-actions
Bot
added
the
short review
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Adds YAML scrubbing for the second additional_endpoints config schema (a list of structured endpoint maps with fields like api_key, host, port), which previously leaked API keys when configs were collected (e.g. via flares). The existing URL-keyed map schema is also covered via aggressive leaf-value scrubbing.
Changes:
- New
additionalEndpointsYamlreplacer keyed on^additional_endpoints$that branches on subtree shape: maps are scrubbed at every leaf via the newscrubAllLeafValueshelper, while lists are re-scrubbed viaScrubDataObjso existing key-based replacers (e.g.api_key) handle the structured form. - New
scrubAllLeafValueshelper that recursively rewrites leaf scalars todefaultReplacement, preserving structure andnil. - Table-driven tests covering URL-keyed maps (keys/siblings preserved, API keys scrubbed) and the structured
logs_config.additional_endpointsform (onlyapi_keyscrubbed; host/port/path preserved).
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| pkg/util/scrubber/default.go | Adds the additional_endpoints YAML replacer and the scrubAllLeafValues helper. |
| pkg/util/scrubber/yaml_scrubber_test.go | Adds unit tests for both additional_endpoints schemas. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| // - Sub-values are endpoint URLs | ||
| // - Each URL maps to an array of API keys | ||
| // | ||
| // Format B: []map[string]interface{} a list of structured endpoints will well-defined fields |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 7508c02a0e
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| default: | ||
| return defaultReplacement |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ScrubDataObj normally preserves ENC[...] strings, but scrubAllLeafValues now replaces every non-nil leaf under additional_endpoints with "********". For configs that use secret-backend placeholders inside URL-keyed additional_endpoints maps, this commit will scrub the placeholder itself instead of preserving it, which is a behavior regression compared with other sensitive keys and can remove useful diagnostics in flare output.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
github-actions
Bot
added
medium review
|
Files inventory check summaryFile checks results against ancestor f52d9768: Results for datadog-agent_7.81.0~devel.git.241.7508c02.pipeline.115274968-1_amd64.deb:No change detected |
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
4 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: f52d976 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.58 | [-3.49, +2.34] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +0.50 | [+0.41, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.36 | [+0.16, +0.56] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.31 | [+0.26, +0.36] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.28 | [+0.07, +0.49] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.27 | [+0.11, +0.43] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.24 | [+0.18, +0.30] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.23 | [+0.18, +0.27] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +0.08 | [+0.01, +0.14] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.07 | [-0.94, +1.08] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.18, +0.22] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.15, +0.16] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.10, +0.09] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.21, +0.20] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.44, +0.38] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.48, +0.42] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | -0.04 | [-0.19, +0.12] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -0.06 | [-0.11, -0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.10 | [-0.67, +0.47] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | -0.23 | [-0.46, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -0.42 | [-0.52, -0.31] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.58 | [-3.49, +2.34] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | -0.73 | [-0.92, -0.55] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | -0.81 | [-1.06, -0.56] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | observed_value | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | 692 ≥ 26 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 10/10 | 248.74MiB ≤ 370MiB | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | 713 ≥ 26 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.16GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.20GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.17GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.18GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 ≤ 4 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | 142.32MiB ≤ 147MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 742.19KiB ≤ 819.20KiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | 2 ≤ 4 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | 435.32MiB ≤ 495MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 1.13MiB ≤ 1.25MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 ≤ 6 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 181.74MiB ≤ 195MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 264.37MiB ≤ 292MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 345.04 ≤ 2000 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 ≤ 6 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 379.38MiB ≤ 430MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 0.94GiB ≤ 1.04GiB | bounds checks dashboard |
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:
-
Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.
-
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.
-
Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
What does this PR do?
There are two formats for additional endpoints / dual shipping, and we only scrub one format. Add scrubbing for the second format, which doesn't give useful hints in the YAML keys so we have to get a little creative.
Motivation
Don't leak API keys in configs included as flare data
Describe how you validated your changes
Automated testing