feat: add autodiscovery for kata containers integration

[TheRayquaza]

What does this PR do?

Auto discovery for kata integration.

Motivation

Simplify management for user. With auto discovery the user dont need to specify their sandbox_storage_paths they just enable some feature in either datadog-agent helm-charts or the operator and it works OOTB.

Other PRs:

• helm-charts: feat: add kata container integration support helm-charts#2590
• operator: feat: kata container feature to enable kata integration datadog-operator#2917
• integrations-core: feat: add kata_containers integration integrations-core#23465

Note: the objective of these PRs is to mount the /run folder to the /host/run in the agent container whenever the kata integration is enabled hence the PRs above.

Describe how you validated your changes

Tested in squirtle-a cluster having kata containers running. This config used in squirtle-a is sufficient to validate the changes:

config:
  kata_containers:
    enabled: true

agent:
  image:
    tag: dev-mateo.lelong-kata-autodiscovery-f869b2c1-jmx

The configuration would have failed without autodiscovery because:

• the default sandbox_storage_paths would have stayed "/run/vc/sbs" and "/run/kata" (See this)
• the /run folder is always mounted as /host/run in the container agent

In other word, a valid configuration without autodiscovery would have been:

config:
  kata_containers:
    enabled: true
    sandbox_storage_paths: [/host/run/vc/sbs, host/run/kata] # this becomes optional

Additional Notes

Follow up: #47816

[dd-octo-sts]

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor ccf4f7bd:

Results for datadog-agent_7.80.0~devel.git.98.fdc0b06.pipeline.109058118-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 4c948970-a029-44fb-bf89-139795175da2

Baseline: ccf4f7b
Comparison: fdc0b06
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	-0.01	[-3.02, +3.00]	1	Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+0.32	[+0.13, +0.50]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_logs	% cpu utilization	+0.31	[-1.34, +1.96]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle	memory utilization	+0.16	[+0.11, +0.22]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative	memory utilization	+0.14	[-0.01, +0.29]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_metrics	memory utilization	+0.12	[-0.07, +0.31]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.11	[-0.32, +0.54]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_metrics_sum_delta	memory utilization	+0.02	[-0.15, +0.18]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.11, +0.11]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.21, +0.21]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.21, +0.20]	1	Logs
➖	docker_containers_cpu	% cpu utilization	-0.01	[-3.02, +3.00]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.06	[-0.58, +0.46]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.06	[-0.46, +0.33]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_logs	memory utilization	-0.10	[-0.15, -0.04]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.12	[-0.23, -0.01]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders	memory utilization	-0.17	[-0.23, -0.11]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter	memory utilization	-0.19	[-0.42, +0.03]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	-0.29	[-0.32, -0.25]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	docker_containers_memory	memory utilization	-0.37	[-0.46, -0.29]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory utilization	-0.41	[-0.64, -0.18]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.62	[-0.67, -0.56]	1	Logs
➖	otlp_ingest_logs	memory utilization	-0.67	[-0.78, -0.57]	1	Logs
➖	otlp_ingest_metrics	memory utilization	-0.68	[-0.84, -0.52]	1	Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed	observed_value	links
✅	docker_containers_cpu	simple_check_run	10/10	715 ≥ 26
✅	docker_containers_memory	memory_usage	10/10	276.47MiB ≤ 370MiB
✅	docker_containers_memory	simple_check_run	10/10	708 ≥ 26
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10	0.19GiB ≤ 1.20GiB
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10	0.24GiB ≤ 1.20GiB
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B
✅	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10	0.20GiB ≤ 1.20GiB
✅	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B
✅	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10	0.22GiB ≤ 1.20GiB
✅	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B
✅	quality_gate_idle	intake_connections	10/10	4 = 4	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle	memory_usage	10/10	178.02MiB ≤ 181MiB	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	495.47MiB ≤ 550MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	intake_connections	10/10	4 ≤ 6	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	memory_usage	10/10	208.27MiB ≤ 220MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	cpu_usage	10/10	348.90 ≤ 2000	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	intake_connections	10/10	4 ≤ 6	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory_usage	10/10	399.60MiB ≤ 475MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B	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:

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".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_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 missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, 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_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.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: fdc0b063aa

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".

[sblumenthal]

See conversation in slack: https://dd.slack.com/archives/C4TQDFK1P/p1776958386678999?thread_ts=1776947531.092389&cid=C4TQDFK1P

I don't know that the inclusion of this file should be part of this PR, but this file specifically should not be added to this repo without a corresponding entry in https://github.com/DataDog/integrations-core (or, at least, a corresponding PR in that repo)

[TheRayquaza]

I agree, I added a draft PR for the kata container integration:
DataDog/integrations-core#23465