fix(security): protect shared SBOM Data with per-Data lock - #54913
fix(security): protect shared SBOM Data with per-Data lock#54913pgimalac wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 59d29baac1
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".
Data races found via a race-detector-enabled build in staging (see #54333). The *Data object is shared across SBOMs that run the same image via the dataCache, but each SBOM has its own sync.RWMutex. So sbomA.Lock() and sbomB.Lock() don't protect the shared Data.packages slice. The forwarding debouncer's copy(packages, sbom.data.packages) races with ResolvePackage's pkg.LastAccess = time.Now() when two containers share the same image. Fix: add a sync.RWMutex to Data. Take data.mu.RLock() in the forwarding snapshot (reader) and data.mu.Lock() in ResolvePackage and processPendingFileEvents (writers). This mirrors the existing pattern in fixedSizeQueue, which already has its own lock for the same reason.
|
🎯 Code Coverage (details) 🔗 Commit SHA: 2a0d49f | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback! |
59d29ba to
2a0d49f
Compare
Files inventory check summaryFile checks results against ancestor 768df0b4: Results for datadog-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.206.2a0d49f.pipeline.131058436-1_amd64.deb:No change detected Results for datadog-iot-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.206.2a0d49f.pipeline.131058436-1_amd64.deb:No change detected |
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
30 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 768df0b Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.39 | [+0.27, +0.51] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_private_action_runner | memory utilization | +0.33 | [+0.21, +0.44] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_security_no_fs_load | memory utilization | +0.16 | [+0.01, +0.31] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.07 | [+0.03, +0.12] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load | memory utilization | +0.04 | [-0.03, +0.11] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_security_idle | memory utilization | -0.16 | [-0.26, -0.05] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | -1.05 | [-1.29, -0.80] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -3.37 | [-4.25, -2.48] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | observed_value | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | intake_connections | 10/10 | 4 = 4 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | 170.92MiB ≤ 178MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 743.04KiB ≤ 819.20KiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | 4 = 4 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | 517.85MiB ≤ 538MiB | 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 | 18 ≤ 40 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 209.04MiB ≤ 229MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 264.43MiB ≤ 292MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 366.11 ≤ 2000 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 18 ≤ 40 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 393.81MiB ≤ 439MiB | 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 |
| ✅ | quality_gate_private_action_runner | memory_usage | 10/10 | 72.20MiB ≤ 76MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_idle | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 27.16 ≤ 100 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | 328.74MiB ≤ 335MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 60.80 ≤ 200 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | 303.42MiB ≤ 314MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_no_fs_load | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 21.65 ≤ 100 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_no_fs_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | 314.00MiB ≤ 343MiB | 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, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check cpu_usage: 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.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 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 memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_private_action_runner, bounds check memory_usage: 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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
What does this PR do?
Fixes a data race on
Data.packages: the*Dataobject is shared across SBOMs running the same image (via thedataCache), but each SBOM has its own lock, so the forwarding snapshot (copy(packages, sbom.data.packages)) races withResolvePackage'spkg.LastAccesswrites when two containers share the same image. Adds async.RWMutextoData, taken asRLockin the forwarding reader andLockin the package-enrichment writers, mirroring the existingfixedSizeQueuepattern.Motivation
Fix a race, found via a race-detector-enabled build in staging (see #54333 for context).
Describe how you validated your changes
Added
TestSharedDataConcurrentForwardingAndResolvewhich racesprocessPendingFileEvents(writer) against the forwardingcopy()(reader) on two SBOMs sharing the same*Data; fails under-racebefore the fix and passes after (dda inv test --targets=./pkg/security/resolvers/sbom/... --race).