fix(installer): Prevent agent or installer remote uninstall #33351
Conversation
BaptisteFoy
added
changelog/no-changelog
qa/done
github-actions
bot
added
the
short review
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=53906974 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit a158d2e |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 6e72819 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.64 | [-0.25, +1.52] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.48 | [+0.45, +0.52] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.21 | [+0.16, +0.26] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.10 | [-0.37, +0.56] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.79, +0.91] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.88, +0.94] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.90, +0.95] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.76, +0.80] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.69, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.63, +0.64] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.04, +0.03] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.30, +0.28] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.20 | [-0.25, -0.15] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.41 | [-1.19, +0.38] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.52 | [-0.62, -0.42] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.32 | [-4.40, +1.75] | 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_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 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 | 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 | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | 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:
-
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_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, 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 intake_connections: 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 memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
| @@ -552,6 +552,10 @@ func (d *daemonImpl) handleRemoteAPIRequest(request remoteAPIRequest) (err error | |||
|
|
|||
| case methodUninstallPackage: | |||
| log.Infof("Installer: Received remote request %s to uninstall package %s", request.ID, request.Package) | |||
| if request.Package == "datadog-installer" || request.Package == "datadog-agent" { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💭 thought: Ideally Fleet Automation should be able to work even without the Agent installed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Functionally it does but the whole reporting & displaying to customers is broken as the installer doesn't send inventory payloads
github-actions
bot
added
medium review
What does this PR do?
Prevents remote uninstall of the agent or the installer
Motivation
Not locking ourselves out
Describe how you validated your changes
Manual test
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes