usm, npm, classification: Fix a leak in connection_protocol #31153
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
If USM was enabled, but classification feature of NPM was disabled, we had a leak
in connection_protocol map, as both USM and NPM would have mark the connection as visible
from their probes (NPM would have done that from 'update_conn_stats'), but the probe
to clean the entry ('kretprobe__tcp_close_clean_protocols') wasn't enabled.
To clean an entry, we need all modules to mark it as ready for deletion, but only USM
would have done that. The fix it to prevent NPM from processing the protocol if classification
is disabled. Hence, NPM won't mark the conneciton as accessible from it, and we will only need
USM to delete it
guyarb
added
changelog/no-changelog
team/networks
team/usm
github-actions
bot
added
component/system-probe
short review
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 49211483 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
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 |
eBPF complexity changesSummary result: ✅ - stable
tracer detailstracer [programs with changes]
tracer [programs without changes]
tracer_fentry detailstracer_fentry [programs with changes]
tracer_fentry [programs without changes]
This report was generated based on the complexity data for the current branch guy.arbitman/fix-map-leak (pipeline 49211483, commit a449a43) and the base branch main (commit dd3da58). Objects without changes are not reported. Contact #ebpf-platform if you have any questions/feedback. Table complexity legend: 🔵 - new; ⚪ - unchanged; 🟢 - reduced; 🔴 - increased |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: dd3da58 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | +3.59 | [-0.29, +7.47] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +0.54 | [-2.90, +3.99] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.32 | [+0.19, +0.45] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.24 | [-0.43, +0.91] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.21 | [-0.56, +0.98] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.08 | [-0.38, +0.54] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.72, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.70, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.79, +0.82] | 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 | [-0.11, +0.09] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.64, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.11 | [-0.15, -0.06] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.18 | [-0.92, +0.55] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.27 | [-0.33, -0.20] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.74 | [-0.85, -0.63] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | lost_bytes | 0/10 | |
| ❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
| ✅ | 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:
-
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_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.
amitslavin
approved these changes
Nov 17, 2024
akarpz
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2024
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do?
If USM was enabled, but classification feature of NPM was disabled, we had a leak in connection_protocol map, as both USM and NPM would have mark the connection as visible from their probes (NPM would have done that from 'update_conn_stats'), but the probe to clean the entry ('kretprobe__tcp_close_clean_protocols') wasn't enabled.
To clean an entry, we need all modules to mark it as ready for deletion, but only USM would have done that. The fix it to prevent NPM from processing the protocol if classification is disabled. Hence, NPM won't mark the conneciton as accessible from it, and we will only need USM to delete it
Motivation
Fixing a leak in eBPF map.
Describe how to test/QA your changes
python -m http.server 8080curl http://localhost:8080Repeat the test once on main and once on this branch.
On main expect to see an entry, on this branch expect to have no result
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes