fix(libdd-ipc): add missing Win32_System_WindowsProgramming windows-sys feature (#2663)

[VianneyRuhlmann]

Backport of #2663

What does this PR do?

Adds the missing Win32_System_WindowsProgramming feature to the windows-sys dependency in libdd-ipc/Cargo.toml, which gates FILE_SKIP_COMPLETION_PORT_ON_SUCCESS (imported in src/platform/windows/sockets/writer.rs).

Motivation

Standalone (non-workspace) builds of libdd-ipc fail on Windows with unresolved import windows_sys::Win32::System::WindowsProgramming (E0432). The feature was dropped during the windows-sys 0.48 → 0.52 migration in #2569 while the import remained. CI never caught it because mio 1.0.2 in the workspace lockfile accidentally enables the feature via unification — downstream lockfiles (e.g. dd-trace-py) that resolve mio to a version using windows-sys 0.61 get no such rescue and all Windows wheels fail.

Additional Notes

Audited all other windows_sys imports in libdd-ipc/src — every remaining module maps to an already-declared feature.

How to test the change?

Verified with an isolated consumer crate (fresh lockfile where mio resolves to windows-sys 0.61.2): cargo tree -i windows-sys@0.52.0 -e features --target x86_64-pc-windows-msvc now shows Win32_System_WindowsProgramming flowing solely from libdd-ipc. On a Windows runner, cargo check -p libdd-ipc --target x86_64-pc-windows-msvc should pass.

Co-authored-by: vianney.ruhlmann vianney.ruhlmann@datadoghq.com

What does this PR do?

A brief description of the change being made with this pull request.

Motivation

What inspired you to submit this pull request?

Additional Notes

Anything else we should know when reviewing?

How to test the change?

Describe here in detail how the change can be validated.

[github-actions]

📚 Documentation Check Results

⚠️ 1021 documentation warning(s) found

📦 libdd-ipc - 1021 warning(s)

---

Updated: 2026-10-13 12:57:30 UTC | Commit: d96cebd | missing-docs job results

[github-actions]

🔒 Cargo Deny Results

⚠️ 2 issue(s) found, showing only errors (advisories, bans, sources)

📦 libdd-ipc - 2 error(s)

Show output

error[unmaintained]: Bincode is unmaintained
   ┌─ /home/runner/work/libdatadog/libdatadog/Cargo.lock:24:1
   │
24 │ bincode 1.3.3 registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index
   │ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ unmaintained advisory detected
   │
   ├ ID: RUSTSEC-2025-0141
   ├ Advisory: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2025-0141
   ├ Due to a doxxing and harassment incident, the bincode team has taken the decision to cease development permanently.
     
     The team considers version 1.3.3 a complete version of bincode that is not in need of any updates.
     
     ## Alternatives to consider
     
     * [wincode](https://crates.io/crates/wincode)
     * [postcard](https://crates.io/crates/postcard)
     * [bitcode](https://crates.io/crates/bitcode)
     * [rkyv](https://crates.io/crates/rkyv)
   ├ Announcement: https://git.sr.ht/~stygianentity/bincode/tree/v3.0/item/README.md
   ├ Solution: No safe upgrade is available!
   ├ bincode v1.3.3
     └── libdd-ipc v2.0.0

error[vulnerability]: TLS 1.3 handshake messages incorrectly accepted across encryption level boundaries
    ┌─ /home/runner/work/libdatadog/libdatadog/Cargo.lock:229:1
    │
229 │ rustls 0.23.37 registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index
    │ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ security vulnerability detected
    │
    ├ ID: RUSTSEC-2026-0285
    ├ Advisory: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0285
    ├ Rustls accepted TLS 1.3 handshake messages sent at the wrong encryption level
      when they followed a key-changing message in the same record. For example,
      a plaintext `EncryptedExtensions` message packed into the same record as the
      `ServerHello` was accepted.
      
      RFC 8446 section 5.1 requires that handshake messages do not span key changes,
      and that implementations terminate the connection with an "unexpected_message"
      alert if they do.
      
      The handshake transcript is still authenticated, so a network-position attacker
      cannot use this to alter or complete a handshake; the practical effect is that
      a peer could send handshake messages that should be encrypted in plaintext
      without rustls rejecting the connection.
      
      This is functionally the same bug as Go's
      [GO-2026-4340](https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2026-4340) (CVE-2025-61730).
    ├ Announcement: https://github.com/rustls/rustls/pull/3265
    ├ Solution: Upgrade to >=0.23.45 (try `cargo update -p rustls`)
    ├ rustls v0.23.37
      ├── hyper-rustls v0.27.7
      │   └── libdd-common v8.0.0
      │       ├── libdd-capabilities-impl v7.0.0
      │       │   ├── libdd-shared-runtime v6.0.0
      │       │   │   └── libdd-trace-stats v11.0.0
      │       │   │       └── libdd-ipc v2.0.0
      │       │   ├── libdd-trace-stats v11.0.0 (*)
      │       │   └── libdd-trace-utils v14.0.0
      │       │       ├── libdd-trace-obfuscation v10.0.0
      │       │       │   └── libdd-trace-stats v11.0.0 (*)
      │       │       ├── libdd-trace-stats v11.0.0 (*)
      │       │       └── (dev) libdd-trace-utils v14.0.0 (*)
      │       ├── libdd-ipc v2.0.0 (*)
      │       ├── libdd-shared-runtime v6.0.0 (*)
      │       ├── libdd-trace-obfuscation v10.0.0 (*)
      │       ├── libdd-trace-stats v11.0.0 (*)
      │       └── libdd-trace-utils v14.0.0 (*)
      ├── libdd-common v8.0.0 (*)
      ├── rustls-platform-verifier v0.6.2
      │   └── libdd-common v8.0.0 (*)
      └── tokio-rustls v0.26.0
          └── hyper-rustls v0.27.7 (*)

advisories FAILED, bans ok, sources ok

---

Updated: 2026-10-13 12:59:10 UTC | Commit: d96cebd | dependency-check job results

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2]

✅ All CI checks and tests passed.

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 80.11% (-0.01%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 45ad3b0 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Comparison

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-13 13:02:30

Comparing candidate commit 45ad3b0 in PR branch backport/vianney/fix-ipc-windows-feature-flag with baseline commit 7f3b16f in branch release/v45.0.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 2 metrics, 0 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 ----------------------------------'

Candidate

Candidate benchmark details

Group 1

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	45ad3b0	1791896089	backport/vianney/fix-ipc-windows-feature-flag

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
write only interface	execution_time	1.054µs	1.069µs ± 0.006µs	1.071µs ± 0.004µs	1.074µs	1.076µs	1.079µs	1.081µs	0.93%	-0.626	-0.480	0.59%	0.000µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
write only interface	execution_time	[1.068µs; 1.070µs] or [-0.082%; +0.082%]	None	None	None

Group 2

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	45ad3b0	1791896089	backport/vianney/fix-ipc-windows-feature-flag

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
two way interface	execution_time	15.355µs	15.796µs ± 0.676µs	15.731µs ± 0.118µs	15.854µs	16.134µs	16.332µs	24.910µs	58.35%	12.335	163.738	4.27%	0.048µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
two way interface	execution_time	[15.702µs; 15.890µs] or [-0.593%; +0.593%]	None	None	None

Baseline

Baseline benchmark details

Group 1

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	7f3b16f	1790961295	release/v45.0

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
write only interface	execution_time	1.067µs	1.080µs ± 0.005µs	1.080µs ± 0.001µs	1.082µs	1.089µs	1.091µs	1.097µs	1.54%	-0.299	0.897	0.49%	0.000µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
write only interface	execution_time	[1.080µs; 1.081µs] or [-0.068%; +0.068%]	None	None	None

Group 2

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	7f3b16f	1790961295	release/v45.0

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
two way interface	execution_time	15.055µs	15.507µs ± 0.203µs	15.503µs ± 0.140µs	15.657µs	15.825µs	15.997µs	16.135µs	4.08%	0.197	-0.175	1.30%	0.014µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
two way interface	execution_time	[15.479µs; 15.535µs] or [-0.181%; +0.181%]	None	None	None

[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 2026-10-13T14:19:30.944798Z	45ad3b0	Draft marked ready
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-13T14:21:28.997179Z	45ad3b0	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.