fix(ssi): wait for RC before inject-all

[iamluc]

Description

Do not apply Single Step Instrumentation inject-all until the Cluster Agent has completed a Remote Config round-trip for APM_POLICIES. An empty local cache at subscribe time is not a backend snapshot, so treating it as "no rules" could instrument pods that a remote deny would have skipped. The admission webhook does not block: unmatched pods pass through unchanged until the first snapshot arrives (or is confirmed empty).

Follow-up to #55104.

Related Issue

#55104

Type of Change

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Breaking change
• Refactor / cleanup
• CI / tooling
• Documentation

Checklist

• Documentation updated if needed
• Tests added or updated
• No unintended breaking changes

How Has This Been Tested?

Unit tests in pkg/clusteragent/admission/mutate/autoinstrumentation (dda inv test --targets=./pkg/clusteragent/admission/mutate/autoinstrumentation).

Additional Notes

Depends on the matching/RC layering from #55104. This PR is opened against that branch.

Static Helm/Operator targets still match immediately while RC is pending. If Remote Config never syncs, inject-all stays withheld (fail-closed).

[datadog-prod-us1-3]

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 96.55%
• Overall Coverage: 55.12% (+0.08%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: caa859b | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[dd-octo-sts]

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor 237a93bf:

Results for datadog-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.634.caa859b.pipeline.134556036-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

Results for datadog-iot-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.634.caa859b.pipeline.134556036-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

[dd-octo-sts]

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor 237a93b
📊 Static Quality Gates Dashboard
🔗 SQG Job

Successful checks

Info

	Quality gate	Change	Size (prev → curr → max)
✅	agent_deb_amd64	+36.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -1.17% of buffer)	762.304 → 762.340 → 765.300
✅	agent_deb_amd64_fips	+24.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -1.19% of buffer)	714.566 → 714.589 → 716.540
✅	agent_heroku_amd64	+12.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -0.19% of buffer)	313.501 → 313.513 → 319.540
✅	agent_msi	+29.5 KiB (0.00% increase, -0.23% of buffer)	648.437 → 648.465 → 661.050
✅	agent_rpm_amd64	+36.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -1.18% of buffer)	762.288 → 762.323 → 765.270
✅	agent_rpm_amd64_fips	+24.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -1.18% of buffer)	714.549 → 714.573 → 716.540
✅	agent_rpm_arm64	+20.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -2.45% of buffer)	738.153 → 738.173 → 738.950
✅	agent_rpm_arm64_fips	+20.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -1.87% of buffer)	693.744 → 693.764 → 694.790
✅	agent_suse_amd64	+36.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -1.18% of buffer)	762.288 → 762.323 → 765.270
✅	agent_suse_amd64_fips	+24.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -1.18% of buffer)	714.549 → 714.573 → 716.540
✅	agent_suse_arm64	+20.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -2.45% of buffer)	738.153 → 738.173 → 738.950
✅	agent_suse_arm64_fips	+20.0 KiB (0.00% increase, -1.87% of buffer)	693.744 → 693.764 → 694.790
✅	docker_agent_amd64	+49.52 KiB (0.01% increase, -6.20% of buffer)	821.320 → 821.369 → 822.100
✅	docker_agent_arm64	+41.51 KiB (0.00% increase, -5.08% of buffer)	822.222 → 822.262 → 823.020
✅	docker_agent_jmx_amd64	+49.51 KiB (0.00% increase, -6.14% of buffer)	1012.233 → 1012.281 → 1013.020
✅	docker_agent_jmx_arm64	+41.52 KiB (0.00% increase, -5.09% of buffer)	1001.914 → 1001.954 → 1002.710
✅	docker_cluster_agent_amd64	+11.61 KiB (0.01% increase, -1.32% of buffer)	211.273 → 211.285 → 212.130
✅	docker_cluster_agent_arm64	+3.64 KiB (0.00% increase, -0.43% of buffer)	224.399 → 224.402 → 225.220
✅	docker_host_profiler_amd64	+41.92 KiB (0.01% increase, -0.38% of buffer)	306.871 → 306.912 → 317.700
✅	docker_host_profiler_arm64	+42.82 KiB (0.01% increase, -0.39% of buffer)	318.168 → 318.210 → 328.970
✅	iot_agent_deb_amd64	+4.0 KiB (0.01% increase, -0.40% of buffer)	46.580 → 46.583 → 47.550
✅	iot_agent_deb_arm64	+4.0 KiB (0.01% increase, -0.39% of buffer)	43.212 → 43.216 → 44.220
✅	iot_agent_deb_armhf	+4.0 KiB (0.01% increase, -0.39% of buffer)	44.022 → 44.026 → 45.020
✅	iot_agent_rpm_amd64	+4.0 KiB (0.01% increase, -0.40% of buffer)	46.580 → 46.584 → 47.550
✅	iot_agent_suse_amd64	+4.0 KiB (0.01% increase, -0.40% of buffer)	46.579 → 46.583 → 47.550

8 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)

	Quality gate	Current Size
✅	docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64	7.439 MiB
✅	docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64	6.877 MiB
✅	docker_dogstatsd_amd64	39.553 MiB
✅	docker_dogstatsd_arm64	37.623 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_deb_amd64	30.290 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_deb_arm64	28.306 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_rpm_amd64	30.290 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_suse_amd64	30.290 MiB

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Job ID: 8604a4d2-1d02-4281-8aa8-fd0fb77486c0

Baseline: 237a93b
Comparison: caa859b
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	quality_gate_security_idle	memory utilization	+0.45	[+0.40, +0.50]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	memory utilization	+0.41	[+0.33, +0.50]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	dsd_uds_10mb_3k_timestamped_contexts_cpu	% cpu utilization	+0.23	[-0.01, +0.48]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_private_action_runner	memory utilization	+0.16	[+0.03, +0.29]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	+0.12	[+0.08, +0.15]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	dsd_uds_10mb_3k_timestamped_contexts_memory	memory utilization	+0.05	[-0.16, +0.26]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	memory utilization	+0.04	[+0.00, +0.08]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory utilization	-0.21	[-0.44, +0.02]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle	memory utilization	-0.29	[-0.34, -0.25]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_logs	% cpu utilization	-0.87	[-1.75, -0.00]	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	172.00MiB ≤ 179MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle	total_bytes_received	10/10	747.65KiB ≤ 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	515.45MiB ≤ 537MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	total_bytes_received	10/10	1.15MiB ≤ 1.25MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	intake_connections	10/10	17 ≤ 40	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	memory_usage	10/10	209.71MiB ≤ 228MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	total_bytes_received	10/10	263.09MiB ≤ 292MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	cpu_usage	10/10	354.88 ≤ 2000	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	intake_connections	10/10	19 ≤ 40	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory_usage	10/10	418.32MiB ≤ 455MiB	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	71.72MiB ≤ 75MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_idle	cpu_usage	10/10	28.08 ≤ 100	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_idle	memory_usage	10/10	328.91MiB ≤ 355MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	cpu_usage	10/10	62.25 ≤ 200	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	memory_usage	10/10	307.55MiB ≤ 335MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	cpu_usage	10/10	23.46 ≤ 100	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	memory_usage	10/10	313.96MiB ≤ 345MiB	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_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_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check cpu_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_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 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 total_bytes_received: 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 intake_connections: 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_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_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 total_bytes_received: 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 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_private_action_runner, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

[github-actions]

AI review by Codex (OpenAI) - workflow run

Patch is incorrect: it waits for a global RC sync before registering APM_POLICIES, so the sync can complete without fetching that product and incorrectly enable inject-all.

[datadog-prod-us1-3]

A failed first backend Remote Config refresh can still mark the local client as synchronized. This enables inject-all from an empty cache and can ignore an unseen remote deny.

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Datadog Autotest · Commit d9bf966 · What is Autotest? · @DataDog review to ask questions · Any feedback? Reach out in #autotest}

[ameske]

If nothing has called client.Subscribe(state.ProductApmPolicies, ) then this sync is pretty meaningless for you as you won't get ApmPolicies products without the subscribe. (which I think is what the AI model is calling out below)

If you know something has called subscribe already, then I'm confused about the intent of this code.

[iamluc]

APM_POLICIES is already in WithProducts when the cluster-agent builds the client, before Start() and before this subscribe. Subscribe would register it if it weren't already there; here it just attaches the callback, the product is already on the wire. HasSynced was just "has that first poll finished?", so we wouldn't treat an empty cache as "no policies" too early.

A global sync flag is still the wrong signal though. It doesn't say which products were actually requested. Dropped it. The mutator now uses SubscribeAll(..., WithInitialUpdate()): you get called once there is an answer for that product (including empty). If a poll that requested it has already completed, that happens during Subscribe; otherwise on the first poll that does.

And the wait is bounded, after a minute we instrument anyway, rather than silently withhold SSI from a configuration that asked for it.

WDYT?

[iamluc]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-01T10:31:17.446371Z	caa859b	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 381f7d09e8

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[iamluc]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: caa859b877

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".