Support agentless log submission for JBoss LogManager

[daniel-mohedano]

What Does This Do

Second PR of the agentless log submission stack. It adds a shared helper and uses it for JBoss LogManager.

• AgentlessLogSubmission (agent-bootstrap) builds the submitted event, using the same payload shape as the Log4j2 agentless appender:
  • level filtering against DD_AGENTLESS_LOG_SUBMISSION_LEVEL, with level names normalized to TRACE ... FATAL
  • a contextMap with the producer correlation IDs and the dd.service, dd.env and dd.version values (when log injection is enabled), overlaid with the user context. Logback and Log4j2 events already carry these values.
  • the exception message, class name and stack trace, truncated to 16 KB like Log4j2
• JBoss LogManager: when agentless log submission is enabled, a second advice on LoggerNode.publish(ExtLogRecord) submits each record once.
  • It runs after the logger level and filter checks, and before any handler, including async ones.
  • A call-depth guard sends each record once, even when it reaches parent handlers. As a side effect, a record that a handler logs while another record is being published is not submitted. The existing correlation advice uses the same guard.
  • The user context comes from the JBoss MDC.
• The JBoss correlation modules are now context tracking modules, so MDC injection also works with CI Visibility when tracing is disabled.
• The log injection smoke tests now assert direct submission for JBoss backends, including JUL routed to JBoss LogManager.
• The logs intake now creates its HTTP client when the first log is sent, instead of when its thread starts. Creating the client initializes TLS, and the JDK security event logging can then initialize the JUL LogManager on the intake thread. JBoss LogManager 2.1+ (through JBossLoggerFinder) then reads its configuration with the wrong context class loader and ignores the application's logging.properties.

Stack:

1. Logback (Support agentless log submission for Logback #12725)
2. Shared submission helper and JBoss LogManager (this PR) (Support agentless log submission for JBoss LogManager #12726)
3. tinylog 2 (Support agentless log submission for tinylog #12727)
4. Log4j 1 (Support agentless log submission for Log4j 1 #12728)

Motivation

See the first PR of the stack. JBoss LogManager already had correlation, but nothing submitted its records with agentless submission.

Additional Notes

• Supported from 1.2.0.GA. Version 1.1.x has no LoggerNode.publish, so neither the existing correlation hook nor submission applies there. The Muzzle range is unchanged.
• Nothing changes when agentless log submission is disabled, except the MDC injection fix above.

Testing:

• AgentlessLogSubmission unit tests.
• Forked JUnit 5 instrumentation tests on 1.2.0.GA and latest (3.x, JDK 11+). They cover:
  • submission and level filtering, JUL levels, exceptions
  • user MDC, child spans, no active span
  • parent handlers, AsyncHandler
  • injection disabled, CI Visibility with tracing disabled
• :dd-smoke-tests:log-injection:test and Muzzle pass.

Jira ticket: SDTEST-3805

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - sbt-scalatest

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	57.76	57.69	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.07	56.55	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.21	54/308
agentEvpProxy	58.12	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	-

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 65.22%
• Overall Coverage: 59.70% (-9.13%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: bef2ad6 | Docs | Give us feedback!}

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - nebula-release-plugin

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	37.58	37.15	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.43	37.15	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.43	28/168
agentless	36.27	37.15	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.88	36.42	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.15	28/141
agentlessCodeCoverage	46.70	45.38	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.32	45.38	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.32	28/140
agentlessLineCoverage	55.33	56.55	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -1.22	56.55	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -1.22	27/139

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - netflix-zuul

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	91.37	91.39	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.02	89.58	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.79	29/170
agentless	82.83	82.69	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.14	82.69	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.14	28/139
agentlessCodeCoverage	99.36	97.04	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +2.32	97.04	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +2.32	28/139
agentlessLineCoverage	114.71	113.88	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.83	113.88	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.83	27/139

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - pass4s

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	13.45	10.54	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +2.91	10.13	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +3.32	30/164
agentless	10.36	10.33	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.03	9.92	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.44	28/133
agentlessCodeCoverage	18.42	18.08	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.34	17.73	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.69	24/122

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - reactive-streams-jvm

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	22.31	22.54	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.23	22.09	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.22	29/168
agentless	20.07	19.59	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.48	19.59	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.48	28/135
agentlessCodeCoverage	20.28	20.39	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.11	19.99	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.29	27/134
agentlessLineCoverage	27.90	26.98	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.92	26.98	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.92	18/89

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - heliboard

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	9.85	9.92	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.07	9.92	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.07	28/138

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - sonar-kotlin

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	13.07	13.67	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.60	13.40	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.33	29/168
agentless	11.85	12.37	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.52	12.12	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.27	29/138
agentlessCodeCoverage	15.60	15.72	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.12	15.41	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.19	28/137
agentlessLineCoverage	17.38	17.73	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.35	17.38	$\color{gray}{\bullet}$ 0.00	27/136

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[dd-octo-sts]

🟢 Java Benchmark SLOs — All performance SLOs passed

Suite	Status
Startup	🟢 pass

SLO thresholds are defined here based on automatically generated metrics. A warning is raised when results are within 5% of the threshold.

PR vs. master results

Scenario	Candidate	master	Δ (95% CI of mean)
startup:insecure-bank:iast:Agent	14.03 s	13.98 s	[-0.6%; +1.3%] (no difference)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent	12.92 s	12.98 s	[-1.5%; +0.6%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent	17.16 s	16.97 s	[+0.2%; +2.0%] (maybe worse)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent	16.93 s	17.09 s	[-1.8%; -0.1%] (maybe better)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent	16.58 s	16.85 s	[-2.7%; -0.6%] (maybe better)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent	17.08 s	16.94 s	[-0.0%; +1.6%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent	15.69 s	16.18 s	[-7.1%; +1.1%] (no difference)

Commit: bef2ad61 · CI Pipeline · Benchmarking Platform UI

---

Load and DaCapo benchmarks can be triggered manually in the GitLab pipeline. Results will appear in the Benchmarking Platform UI after completion.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - jolokia

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	94.57	95.12	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.55	95.12	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.55	30/169
agentless	88.31	91.39	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -3.08	89.58	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -1.27	29/140
agentlessCodeCoverage	98.47	101.00	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -2.53	99.00	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.53	29/141
agentlessLineCoverage	101.18	103.04	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -1.86	101.00	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.18	30/144

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - okhttp

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	17.95	19.59	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -1.64	19.99	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -2.04	29/169
agentless	17.55	18.82	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -1.27	19.59	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -2.04	30/142
agentlessCodeCoverage	21.19	22.09	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.90	22.99	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -1.80	31/145
agentlessLineCoverage	38.65	37.91	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.74	39.45	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.80	26/137

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - spring_boot

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	16.28	16.36	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.08	16.36	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.08	29/165
agentless	9.83	9.92	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.09	9.92	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.09	29/137
agentlessCodeCoverage	13.91	13.67	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.24	13.67	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.24	29/139
agentlessLineCoverage	23.57	22.54	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.03	22.54	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.03	27/136

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - sonar-java

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	-17.74	17.38	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -35.12	15.41	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -33.15	29/167
agentless	-13.34	16.69	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -30.03	13.67	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -27.01	29/139
agentlessCodeCoverage	68.20	95.12	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -26.92	81.05	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -12.85	29/139
agentlessLineCoverage	88.85	123.36	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -34.51	123.36	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -34.51	27/140

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[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 2026-10-05T12:57:46.872051Z	70d6cc0	Draft marked ready
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-05T12:56:56.861782Z	70d6cc0	Draft marked ready

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: 70d6cc022f

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".

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

JBoss submissions read the publisher thread’s live MDC instead of the record snapshot, while the class-wide call-depth guard suppresses distinct records emitted synchronously by handlers.

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit 70d6cc0 · @DataDog review to ask questions}

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

Agentless JBoss submission can discard MDC values stored on the log record and diverge from handler correlation when log-injection settings change during an active trace.

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit 96cdb4c}