Exclude OTLP header and Datadog key configs from telemetry by bm1549 · Pull Request #3961 · DataDog/dd-trace-php

bm1549 · 2026-06-06T01:14:16Z

Description

Stops configuration telemetry from reporting DD_API_KEY or OTLP exporter header values.

DD_API_KEY now uses a sensitivity flag carried through ZAI config metadata. The OTLP header configs remain in supported-config metadata with sensitive: true, but are rejected at the PHP whitelist and native ingestion boundaries. DD_TRACE_ENABLED remains omitted separately because its shutdown-time value is not meaningful.

The metadata generator now reads sensitivity from all config headers and uses comment/string-aware parsing. Its CI self-test covers parser edge cases. Runtime coverage checks the native bypass path and a future OTLP traces header variant, with safe configs as positive controls.

Reviewer checklist

Test coverage seems ok.
Appropriate labels assigned.

datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2 · 2026-06-06T01:16:16Z

⚠️ Warnings

🚦 4 Pipeline jobs failed

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | merge-gate

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | publish docker image for system tests

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | test_extension_ci: [7.4]

View all 4 failed jobs.

🧪 1 Test failed in 1 job

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | appsec integration tests: [test8.0-release]

initializationError from com.datadog.appsec.php.integration.RoadRunnerTests

com.github.dockerjava.api.exception.ConflictException: Status 409: {&#34;message&#34;:&#34;container e7590cd193092fd10b32bb6907db3e2ea952d595175652d91f1fb588ff711011 is not running&#34;}

com.github.dockerjava.api.exception.ConflictException: Status 409: {&#34;message&#34;:&#34;container e7590cd193092fd10b32bb6907db3e2ea952d595175652d91f1fb588ff711011 is not running&#34;}

	at app//org.testcontainers.shaded.com.github.dockerjava.core.DefaultInvocationBuilder.execute(DefaultInvocationBuilder.java:245)
	at app//org.testcontainers.shaded.com.github.dockerjava.core.DefaultInvocationBuilder.post(DefaultInvocationBuilder.java:124)
	at app//org.testcontainers.shaded.com.github.dockerjava.core.exec.ExecCreateCmdExec.execute(ExecCreateCmdExec.java:30)
	at app//org.testcontainers.shaded.com.github.dockerjava.core.exec.ExecCreateCmdExec.execute(ExecCreateCmdExec.java:13)
	at app//org.testcontainers.shaded.com.github.dockerjava.core.exec.AbstrSyncDockerCmdExec.exec(AbstrSyncDockerCmdExec.java:21)
	at app//org.testcontainers.shaded.com.github.dockerjava.core.command.AbstrDockerCmd.exec(AbstrDockerCmd.java:33)
...

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🔄 Datadog auto-retried 8 jobs - 4 passed on retry

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 60.65% (-0.03%)

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.

🔗 Commit SHA: ea536a1 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!}

pr-commenter · 2026-06-06T02:32:49Z

Benchmarks [ tracer ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-08-01 01:32:27

Comparing candidate commit ea536a1 in PR branch brian.marks/omit-sensitive-config-telemetry with baseline commit af463f7 in branch master.

Found 3 performance improvements and 3 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 187 metrics, 1 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization

🟩 execution_time [-8.508µs; -6.492µs] or [-7.635%; -5.825%]

scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization-opcache

🟩 execution_time [-9.362µs; -6.538µs] or [-8.136%; -5.681%]

scenario:PDOBench/benchPDOOverhead

🟥 execution_time [+8.069µs; +10.736µs] or [+3.143%; +4.181%]

scenario:PDOBench/benchPDOOverheadWithDBM

🟥 execution_time [+7.933µs; +11.112µs] or [+3.074%; +4.306%]

scenario:PHPRedisBench/benchRedisOverhead

🟥 execution_time [+41.418µs; +54.008µs] or [+4.104%; +5.352%]

scenario:TraceAnnotationsBench/benchTraceAnnotationOverhead-opcache

🟩 execution_time [-7.898µs; -4.252µs] or [-4.227%; -2.275%]

pr-commenter · 2026-06-12T18:37:55Z

Benchmarks [ profiler ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-08-01 00:29:23

Comparing candidate commit ea536a1 in PR branch brian.marks/omit-sensitive-config-telemetry with baseline commit af463f7 in branch master.

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 28 metrics, 8 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

bm1549 · 2026-06-12T20:00:31Z

 #endif
-            if (cfg->names[0].len != sizeof("DD_TRACE_ENABLED") - 1
-                || memcmp(cfg->names[0].ptr, "DD_TRACE_ENABLED", sizeof("DD_TRACE_ENABLED") - 1) != 0) { // DD_TRACE_ENABLED is meaningless: always off at rshutdown
+            if (!cfg->sensitive) {


While DD_TRACE_ENABLED isn't sensitive, it can be handled in the same way

Add a `sensitive` flag to the configuration definition (zai_config_entry and its memoized entry) so a DD_* configuration can be marked in its CONFIG(...) declaration in ext/configuration.h. The configuration-telemetry enqueue loop over the DD_* config table skips entries whose flag is set; DD_API_KEY and DD_TRACE_ENABLED carry it. Remove the OTLP header configurations (OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_HEADERS, OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_METRICS_HEADERS, OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_LOGS_HEADERS) from the OpenTelemetry SDK configuration whitelist so they are not tracked for telemetry. Derive the "sensitive": true markers in metadata/supported-configurations.json from the flag in ext/configuration.h, plus the OTLP header variants the generator lists. Add a .phpt test and extend the loader functional test to assert these configuration values do not appear in the enqueued configuration telemetry while non-sensitive configurations remain reported. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

bm1549 added the AI Generated Largely based on code generated by an AI or LLM. This label is the same across all dd-trace-* repos label Jun 6, 2026

bm1549 force-pushed the brian.marks/omit-sensitive-config-telemetry branch 5 times, most recently from b468a83 to b5e01e5 Compare June 12, 2026 18:18

bm1549 commented Jun 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

bm1549 marked this pull request as ready for review July 29, 2026 22:08

bm1549 requested review from a team as code owners July 29, 2026 22:08

bm1549 requested review from LobeTia and removed request for a team July 29, 2026 22:08

bm1549 and others added 10 commits July 31, 2026 14:43

Fix test

1a5b8ef

Fix sensitive OTel configuration metadata

86f7c38

Harden sensitive configuration telemetry filtering

ffa8c89

Close sensitive telemetry bypasses

a95b7ee

Test configuration metadata parsers

3c142be

Handle nested OTel configuration literals

9a92bd6

Match PHP configuration literal semantics

c2d77ac

Support keyed OTel configuration values

6948604

Reject ambiguous OTel configuration entries

ea536a1

bm1549 force-pushed the brian.marks/omit-sensitive-config-telemetry branch from 16486c5 to ea536a1 Compare July 31, 2026 19:50

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Exclude OTLP header and Datadog key configs from telemetry - #3961

Exclude OTLP header and Datadog key configs from telemetry#3961
bm1549 wants to merge 10 commits into
masterfrom
brian.marks/omit-sensitive-config-telemetry

bm1549 commented Jun 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2 Bot commented Jun 6, 2026 •

edited by datadog-datadog-prod-us1 Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented Jun 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

Uh oh!

bm1549 Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

bm1549 commented Jun 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Reviewer checklist

Uh oh!

datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2 Bot commented Jun 6, 2026 • edited by datadog-datadog-prod-us1 Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

⚠️ Warnings

ℹ️ Info

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented Jun 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Benchmarks [ tracer ]

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization

scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization-opcache

scenario:PDOBench/benchPDOOverhead

scenario:PDOBench/benchPDOOverheadWithDBM

scenario:PHPRedisBench/benchRedisOverhead

scenario:TraceAnnotationsBench/benchTraceAnnotationOverhead-opcache

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Benchmarks [ profiler ]

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

Uh oh!

bm1549 Jun 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

bm1549 commented Jun 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2 Bot commented Jun 6, 2026 •

edited by datadog-datadog-prod-us1 Bot

Loading

pr-commenter Bot commented Jun 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

pr-commenter Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading