[ABLD-278] Use bazel built libacl. #44079

aiuto · 2025-12-10T19:42:19Z

Cutover from omnibus libacl to bazel

Call libacl install directly from openscap.rb. When openscap is built with Bazel, we'll just depend on it as a dependency.
Remove omnibus step for libacl
Adjust build flags to match what configure/make would produce.

Testing:

Compare 3 things
- build with with configure/make,
- pull libacl.so from an old CI image,
- build with bazel and look at libacl.so

The sizes are close enough for comfort. They vary a bit because in the new build we are not double building some util functions, so we get a little space back.

Similar compare for the public header files. Make sure that our new ones match previous agent builds.

agent-platform-auto-pr · 2025-12-11T05:01:01Z

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor b39a5d3

Successful checks

Info

	Quality gate	Delta	On disk size (MiB)	Delta	On wire size (MiB)
✅	agent_deb_amd64	$${-0.01}$$	$${705.47}$$ < $${706.32}$$	$${-0.05}$$	$${172.88}$$ < $${173.81}$$
✅	agent_deb_amd64_fips	$${-0.01}$$	$${700.8}$$ < $${701.16}$$	$${+0.01}$$	$${171.84}$$ < $${172.71}$$
✅	agent_heroku_amd64	$${+0.01}$$	$${327.27}$$ < $${327.69}$$	$${+0}$$	$${87.23}$$ < $${88.19}$$
✅	agent_msi	$${+0.03}$$	$${568.87}$$ < $${982.08}$$	$${+0.04}$$	$${141.78}$$ < $${143.01}$$
✅	agent_rpm_amd64	$${-0.01}$$	$${705.46}$$ < $${706.31}$$	$${+0.02}$$	$${175.93}$$ < $${176.86}$$
✅	agent_rpm_amd64_fips	$${-0.01}$$	$${700.79}$$ < $${701.15}$$	$${+0.02}$$	$${173.97}$$ < $${174.95}$$
✅	agent_rpm_arm64	$${+0.02}$$	$${691.16}$$ < $${691.67}$$	$${-0.03}$$	$${159.67}$$ < $${160.7}$$
✅	agent_rpm_arm64_fips	$${+0.02}$$	$${687.37}$$ < $${687.54}$$	$${-0.14}$$	$${159.07}$$ < $${160.1}$$
✅	agent_suse_amd64	$${-0.01}$$	$${705.46}$$ < $${706.31}$$	$${+0.02}$$	$${175.93}$$ < $${176.86}$$
✅	agent_suse_amd64_fips	$${-0.01}$$	$${700.79}$$ < $${701.15}$$	$${+0.02}$$	$${173.97}$$ < $${174.95}$$
✅	agent_suse_arm64	$${+0.02}$$	$${691.16}$$ < $${691.67}$$	$${-0.03}$$	$${159.67}$$ < $${160.7}$$
✅	agent_suse_arm64_fips	$${+0.02}$$	$${687.37}$$ < $${687.54}$$	$${-0.14}$$	$${159.07}$$ < $${160.1}$$
✅	docker_agent_amd64	$${-0.01}$$	$${767.8}$$ < $${768.66}$$	$${+0}$$	$${260.63}$$ < $${261.52}$$
✅	docker_agent_arm64	$${+0.02}$$	$${777.78}$$ < $${778.35}$$	$${-0}$$	$${250.8}$$ < $${251.72}$$
✅	docker_agent_jmx_amd64	$${-0.01}$$	$${958.68}$$ < $${959.54}$$	$${+0}$$	$${329.27}$$ < $${330.15}$$
✅	docker_agent_jmx_arm64	$${+0.02}$$	$${957.37}$$ < $${957.95}$$	$${+0}$$	$${315.42}$$ < $${316.35}$$
✅	docker_cluster_agent_amd64	$${+0}$$	$${179.11}$$ < $${179.28}$$	$${-0}$$	$${63.24}$$ < $${63.96}$$
✅	docker_cluster_agent_arm64	$${-0}$$	$${196.58}$$ < $${196.79}$$	$${-0}$$	$${59.97}$$ < $${60.69}$$
✅	docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64	$${+0}$$	$${7.07}$$ < $${7.12}$$	$${+0}$$	$${2.95}$$ < $${3.29}$$
✅	docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64	$${0}$$	$${6.69}$$ < $${6.92}$$	$${+0}$$	$${2.71}$$ < $${3.07}$$
✅	docker_dogstatsd_amd64	$${+0.01}$$	$${38.67}$$ < $${39.3}$$	$${+0}$$	$${14.94}$$ < $${15.76}$$
✅	docker_dogstatsd_arm64	$${-0.06}$$	$${37.3}$$ < $${37.94}$$	$${+0}$$	$${14.38}$$ < $${14.83}$$
✅	dogstatsd_deb_amd64	$${+0}$$	$${29.89}$$ < $${30.53}$$	$${+0}$$	$${7.88}$$ < $${8.75}$$
✅	dogstatsd_deb_arm64	$${+0}$$	$${28.4}$$ < $${29.11}$$	$${+0}$$	$${6.82}$$ < $${7.71}$$
✅	dogstatsd_rpm_amd64	$${+0}$$	$${29.89}$$ < $${30.53}$$	$${+0}$$	$${7.89}$$ < $${8.76}$$
✅	dogstatsd_suse_amd64	$${+0}$$	$${29.89}$$ < $${30.53}$$	$${+0}$$	$${7.89}$$ < $${8.76}$$
✅	iot_agent_deb_amd64	$${+0.01}$$	$${42.62}$$ < $${43.19}$$	$${-0}$$	$${11.13}$$ < $${11.98}$$
✅	iot_agent_deb_arm64	$${+0.01}$$	$${40.36}$$ < $${40.92}$$	$${-0}$$	$${9.58}$$ < $${10.45}$$
✅	iot_agent_deb_armhf	$${+0.01}$$	$${40.26}$$ < $${40.86}$$	$${+0}$$	$${9.7}$$ < $${10.56}$$
✅	iot_agent_rpm_amd64	$${+0.01}$$	$${42.62}$$ < $${43.19}$$	$${-0}$$	$${11.14}$$ < $${12.0}$$
✅	iot_agent_suse_amd64	$${+0.01}$$	$${42.62}$$ < $${43.19}$$	$${-0}$$	$${11.14}$$ < $${12.0}$$

cit-pr-commenter · 2025-12-11T05:10:13Z

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 8b6931a3-562e-4073-ac17-8ddab94c12c6

Baseline: 7e486ae
Comparison: 5ecd6f8
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	docker_containers_cpu	% cpu utilization	+2.35	[-0.71, +5.40]	1	Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	docker_containers_cpu	% cpu utilization	+2.35	[-0.71, +5.40]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_logs	% cpu utilization	+1.51	[+0.00, +3.01]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+0.66	[+0.59, +0.72]	1	Logs
➖	otlp_ingest_metrics	memory utilization	+0.47	[+0.31, +0.63]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders	memory utilization	+0.33	[+0.27, +0.38]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative	memory utilization	+0.20	[+0.04, +0.37]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.02	[-0.03, +0.06]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter	memory utilization	+0.01	[-0.22, +0.24]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.07, +0.08]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.13, +0.13]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.00	[-0.38, +0.38]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.00	[-0.37, +0.37]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_logs	memory utilization	-0.00	[-0.07, +0.06]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.01	[-0.13, +0.12]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.01	[-0.41, +0.40]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	-0.03	[-0.06, +0.01]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	docker_containers_memory	memory utilization	-0.09	[-0.16, -0.02]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory utilization	-0.11	[-0.32, +0.10]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	ddot_metrics	memory utilization	-0.24	[-0.45, -0.03]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_idle	memory utilization	-0.27	[-0.31, -0.22]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.34	[-0.41, -0.27]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_metrics_sum_delta	memory utilization	-0.38	[-0.59, -0.17]	1	Logs
➖	otlp_ingest_logs	memory utilization	-0.62	[-0.71, -0.52]	1	Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed	links
✅	docker_containers_cpu	simple_check_run	10/10
✅	docker_containers_memory	memory_usage	10/10
✅	docker_containers_memory	simple_check_run	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	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_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	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	lost_bytes	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	memory_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	cpu_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	intake_connections	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	lost_bytes	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	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_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 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 lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 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_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 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.

chouquette

a couple of questions/nits but LGTM otherwise!

deps/acl/overlay/overlay.BUILD.bazel

chouquette · 2025-12-11T09:17:00Z

deps/acl/overlay/overlay.BUILD.bazel

+    ":fixed/include/sys/acl.h",
+    ":fixed/include/acl/libacl.h",


Is the fixed subfolder necessary? Why not generating those directly in include/ and avoid the strip_prefix.from_pkg("fixed") below?

It sort of is to prevent clashes. While building the library we want the unfixed version, and while using the library we want the fixed versions. But within the library code they don't always use "sys/acl.h" vs <sys/acl.h> consisstently. I have to keep them separate.

0intro · 2025-12-11T14:46:23Z

I ran the compliance non-regression tests successfully.

aiuto · 2025-12-11T15:02:53Z

/merge

dd-devflow-routing-codex · 2025-12-11T15:02:58Z

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2025-12-11 15:02:58 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

2025-12-11 15:03:08 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
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.

2025-12-11 19:03:13 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

devflow unqueued this merge request: It did not become mergeable within the expected time

aiuto · 2025-12-11T19:34:59Z

/merge

dd-devflow-routing-codex · 2025-12-11T19:35:03Z

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2025-12-11 19:35:02 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

2025-12-11 19:35:11 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
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.

2025-12-11 23:36:07 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

devflow unqueued this merge request: It did not become mergeable within the expected time

aiuto · 2025-12-12T02:54:41Z

/merge

dd-devflow-routing-codex · 2025-12-12T02:54:45Z

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2025-12-12 02:54:44 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

2025-12-12 02:54:50 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
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.

2025-12-12 06:55:11 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

devflow unqueued this merge request: It did not become mergeable within the expected time

aiuto · 2025-12-12T14:36:03Z

/merge

dd-devflow-routing-codex · 2025-12-12T14:36:08Z

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2025-12-12 14:36:07 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

2025-12-12 14:36:14 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
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.

2025-12-12 18:37:04 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

devflow unqueued this merge request: It did not become mergeable within the expected time

aiuto · 2025-12-12T19:32:07Z

/merge

dd-devflow-routing-codex · 2025-12-12T19:32:12Z

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2025-12-12 19:32:11 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

2025-12-12 19:32:19 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
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.

2025-12-12 23:33:09 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

devflow unqueued this merge request: It did not become mergeable within the expected time

aiuto · 2025-12-13T05:51:19Z

/merge

dd-devflow-routing-codex · 2025-12-13T05:51:22Z

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2025-12-13 05:51:22 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

2025-12-13 05:51:29 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
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.

2025-12-13 08:05:11 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: merge request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 40m (p90).

2025-12-13 08:34:03 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

- Depend directly on libacl install from openscap.rb - Remove omnibus step for libacl - Adjust build flags to match what configure/make would produce. Testing: - Compare 3 things - build with with configure/make, - pull libacl.so from an old CI image, - build with bazel and look at libacl.so The sizes are close enough for comfort. They vary a bit because in the new build we are not double building some util functions, so we get a little space back. use all_files

aiuto added changelog/no-changelog qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation labels Dec 10, 2025

github-actions bot added team/agent-build short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Dec 10, 2025

aiuto marked this pull request as ready for review December 11, 2025 04:53

aiuto requested review from a team as code owners December 11, 2025 04:53

aiuto added the ask-review Ask required teams to review this PR label Dec 11, 2025

chouquette approved these changes Dec 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added medium review PR review might take time and removed short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Dec 11, 2025

0intro approved these changes Dec 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

aiuto force-pushed the aiuto/acl branch from 1b4072e to 5122db5 Compare December 11, 2025 18:13

aiuto force-pushed the aiuto/acl branch 2 times, most recently from 944d9e7 to fef9e01 Compare December 13, 2025 04:11

aiuto mentioned this pull request Dec 13, 2025

[ABLD-180] Stop running windows tests on changes to openscap. #44184

Open

aiuto changed the title ~~Use bazel built libacl.~~ [ABLD-278] Use bazel built libacl. Dec 13, 2025

aiuto force-pushed the aiuto/acl branch from fef9e01 to 5ecd6f8 Compare December 13, 2025 06:35

dd-mergequeue bot merged commit df3fc28 into main Dec 13, 2025
432 checks passed

dd-mergequeue bot deleted the aiuto/acl branch December 13, 2025 08:34

github-actions bot added this to the 7.75.0 milestone Dec 13, 2025

[ABLD-278] Use bazel built libacl. #44079

[ABLD-278] Use bazel built libacl. #44079

Conversation

aiuto commented Dec 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Testing:

Uh oh!

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Static quality checks

Info

Uh oh!

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Dec 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Experiments ignored for regressions

Fine details of change detection per experiment

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

Explanation

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Uh oh!

chouquette left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chouquette Dec 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aiuto Dec 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

0intro commented Dec 11, 2025

Uh oh!

aiuto commented Dec 11, 2025

Uh oh!

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aiuto commented Dec 11, 2025

Uh oh!

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aiuto commented Dec 12, 2025

Uh oh!

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aiuto commented Dec 12, 2025

Uh oh!

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aiuto commented Dec 12, 2025

Uh oh!

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aiuto commented Dec 13, 2025

Uh oh!

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

aiuto commented Dec 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dd-devflow-routing-codex bot commented Dec 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading