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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[SBOM] Re-use ErrorCallback WalkOption in post-analysis steps #31476

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 26, 2024
Merged

[SBOM] Re-use ErrorCallback WalkOption in post-analysis steps #31476

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 26, 2024

Conversation

YoannGh
Copy link
Contributor

@YoannGh YoannGh commented Nov 26, 2024

What does this PR do?

Bump trivy in order to re-use existing ErrCallback WalkOption when walking a filesystem in post-analysis steps.

Motivation

The goal is to re-use the option set by the agent here

datadog-agent/pkg/util/trivy/trivy.go

Lines 109 to 116 in 50a93b7

WalkOption: artifact.WalkOption{
ErrorCallback: func(_ string, err error) error {
if errors.Is(err, fs.ErrPermission) || errors.Is(err, os.ErrNotExist) {
return nil
}
return err
},
},

to properly ignore os.ErrNotExist errors occuring when walking the filesystem in trivy post-analysis steps (e.g. when running the dpkg analyzer).

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@YoannGh YoannGh added changelog/no-changelog team/agent-security qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Nov 26, 2024
@YoannGh YoannGh changed the title [SBOM] Re-use ErrorCallback WalkOption in post-analysis steps [SBOM] Re-use ErrorCallback WalkOption in post-analysis steps Nov 26, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly label Nov 26, 2024
@cit-pr-commenter cit-pr-commenter
Copy link

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 63d3e143-cca8-4211-8368-e91d3a343dca

Baseline: 2706272
Comparison: 59cb962
Diff

Optimization Goals: ❌ Significant changes detected

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
❌ pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +5.97 [+2.30, +9.65] 1 Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
❌ pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +5.97 [+2.30, +9.65] 1 Logs
➖ uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +2.89 [+2.14, +3.64] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +1.58 [+1.47, +1.70] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.76 [+0.09, +1.44] 1 Logs
➖ tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.49 [+0.43, +0.55] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.44 [-0.32, +1.20] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.11 [-0.72, +0.94] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.06 [+0.01, +0.11] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput +0.04 [-0.74, +0.81] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.02 [-0.61, +0.65] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.00 [-0.72, +0.72] 1 Logs
➖ tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
➖ uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.11, +0.11] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput -0.03 [-0.49, +0.44] 1 Logs
➖ file_tree memory utilization -1.03 [-1.16, -0.90] 1 Logs
➖ basic_py_check % cpu utilization -2.42 [-6.29, +1.46] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
✅ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency 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 lost_bytes 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

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_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@mftoure
Copy link
Contributor

mftoure commented Nov 26, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Nov 26, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2024-11-26 14:05:22 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.

2024-11-26 14:05:48 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

This merge request was unqueued

@mftoure
Copy link
Contributor

mftoure commented Nov 26, 2024

/merge -c

@YoannGh
Copy link
Contributor Author

YoannGh commented Nov 26, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Nov 26, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2024-11-26 16:19:26 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 23m.

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit d70e22e into main Nov 26, 2024
223 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the yoanngh/fix-trivy-dpkg-walk-file-no-exist branch November 26, 2024 16:56
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.61.0 milestone Nov 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@lebauce lebauce lebauce approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
changelog/no-changelog qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/agent-security
Projects
None yet
Milestone
7.61.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@YoannGh @mftoure @lebauce