[Backport 7.60.x] Add apm_config.additional_endpoints to authorized config paths

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

Backport 07187c1 from #31851.

---

<!--

• Contributors are encouraged to read our CONTRIBUTING documentation.
• Both Contributor and Reviewer Checklists are available at https://datadoghq.dev/datadog-agent/guidelines/contributing/#pull-requests.
• The pull request:
  • Should only fix one issue or add one feature at a time.
  • Must update the test suite for the relevant functionality.
  • Should pass all status checks before being reviewed or merged.
• Commit titles should be prefixed with general area of pull request's change.
• Please fill the below sections if possible with relevant information or links.
  -->

What does this PR do?

Adds apm_config.additional_endpoints to the set of authorized config paths.

Motivation

As part of #incident-33011 we noticed that configsync in the otel agent wasn't updating the API key from apm_config.additional_endpoints. This change fixes this issue and the otel agent is able to fetch the additional endpoints API key from the core agent to send traces.

Describe how you validated your changes

<!--
Validate your changes before merge, ensuring that:

• Your PR is tested by static / unit / integrations / e2e tests
• Your PR description details which e2e tests cover your changes, if any
• The PR description contains details of how you validated your changes. If you validated changes manually and not through automated tests, add context on why automated tests did not fit your changes validation.

If you want additional validation by a second person, you can ask reviewers to do it. Describe how to set up an environment for manual tests in the PR description. Manual validation is expected to happen on every commit before merge.

Any manual validation step should then map to an automated test. Manual validation should not substitute automation, minus exceptions not supported by test tooling yet.
-->
Validated locally

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

<!--

• Anything else we should know when reviewing?
• Include benchmarking information here whenever possible.
• Include info about alternatives that were considered and why the proposed
  version was chosen.
  -->

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv create-vm --pipeline-id=50710402 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit fb9a96c

[cit-pr-commenter]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 6f15a616-2f6e-48a1-baa2-79010420a514

Baseline: f1475b1
Comparison: fb9a96c
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_idle	memory utilization	+0.93	[+0.88, +0.98]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	+0.91	[+0.78, +1.05]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+0.82	[+0.77, +0.87]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.20	[-0.05, +0.45]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	+0.19	[+0.09, +0.28]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.15	[-0.03, +0.33]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.01	[-0.21, +0.24]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.01	[-0.33, +0.34]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.10, +0.10]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.01, +0.01]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.07	[-0.55, +0.42]	1	Logs
➖	pycheck_lots_of_tags	% cpu utilization	-0.10	[-3.55, +3.36]	1	Logs
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	-0.11	[-0.92, +0.69]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	-0.22	[-0.96, +0.52]	1	Logs
➖	idle_all_features	memory utilization	-0.23	[-0.33, -0.12]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	idle	memory utilization	-0.31	[-0.36, -0.26]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	-4.68	[-8.48, -0.89]	1	Logs

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed	links
❌	file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency	memory_usage	9/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	idle	memory_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	idle_all_features	memory_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle	memory_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory_usage	10/10	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".