[wip][do not merge] macos poc for cws

[paulcacheux]

What does this PR do?

This PR implements a new version of CWS in addition to the current linux-ebpf, linux-ebpfless and windows one, this time for macOS.

The main data source for macOS events is the Apple Endpoint Security framework. While some APIs are available to directly fetch and filter events, this POC is based on receiving events from eslogger allowing to completely skip binary signing and apple agreement processes for now.

Motivation

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Reviewer's Checklist

• If known, an appropriate milestone has been selected; otherwise the Triage milestone is set.
• Use the major_change label if your change either has a major impact on the code base, is impacting multiple teams or is changing important well-established internals of the Agent. This label will be use during QA to make sure each team pay extra attention to the changed behavior. For any customer facing change use a releasenote.
• A release note has been added or the changelog/no-changelog label has been applied.
• Changed code has automated tests for its functionality.
• Adequate QA/testing plan information is provided if the qa/skip-qa label is not applied.
• At least one team/.. label has been applied, indicating the team(s) that should QA this change.
• If applicable, docs team has been notified or an issue has been opened on the documentation repo.
• If applicable, the need-change/operator and need-change/helm labels have been applied.
• If applicable, the k8s/<min-version> label, indicating the lowest Kubernetes version compatible with this feature.
• If applicable, the config template has been updated.

[pr-commenter]

Bloop Bleep... Dogbot Here

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: ab17318b-18ee-4c25-afd6-3bfa5fa12fc1
Baseline: d55591b
Comparison: c9a722a

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

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Experiments ignored for regressions

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

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	-0.03	[-6.62, +6.56]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	+2.17	[+1.50, +2.83]
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	+0.88	[+0.78, +0.97]
➖	process_agent_standard_check_with_stats	memory utilization	+0.60	[+0.57, +0.64]
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+0.41	[+0.35, +0.47]
➖	process_agent_real_time_mode	memory utilization	+0.11	[+0.08, +0.15]
➖	idle	memory utilization	+0.04	[-0.01, +0.08]
➖	trace_agent_msgpack	ingress throughput	+0.03	[+0.02, +0.04]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	-0.03	[-6.62, +6.56]
➖	trace_agent_json	ingress throughput	-0.03	[-0.07, +0.01]
➖	process_agent_standard_check	memory utilization	-0.43	[-0.47, -0.39]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	-0.76	[-2.21, +0.69]
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	-2.17	[-4.46, +0.12]
➖	pycheck_1000_100byte_tags	% cpu utilization	-2.26	[-7.44, +2.92]

Explanation

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".

[pr-commenter]

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv create-vm --pipeline-id=39289382 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 571922a

[pr-commenter]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: ce15f41e-df9f-4f60-99cd-ea37f7a17e74 Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: 950a2ba
Comparison: 571922a

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

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	links
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+4.18	[-8.74, +17.11]	Logs
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	+0.07	[-0.74, +0.88]	Logs
➖	idle	memory utilization	+0.03	[-0.02, +0.07]	Logs
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.01, +0.01]	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]	Logs
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	-0.21	[-2.80, +2.38]	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	-0.35	[-1.25, +0.54]	Logs
➖	pycheck_1000_100byte_tags	% cpu utilization	-0.80	[-5.58, +3.98]	Logs
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-2.90	[-3.00, -2.80]	Logs

Explanation

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".