ambex: Remove usage of md5

[wlynch]

Description

When trying to run emissary in crypto-restricted environments (e.g. FIPS), usage of md5 can be problematic:

time="2024-10-17 19:20:29.7063" level=error msg="shut down with error error: PANIC: openssl: MD5 failed" func=github.com/emissary-ingress/emissary/v3/pkg/busy.Main file="github.com/emissary-ingress/emissary/v3/pkg/busy/busy.go:87" CMD=entrypoint PID=1

This replaces the usage with xxhash, which avoids the usage of md5 but keeps the same deterministic hash behavior. This was chosen over other stdlib hash functions that would be conformant (e.g. sha256) to minimize hash size since long hash length may be problematic for k8s name length restrictions (253 characters).

Related Issues

n/a

Testing

Updated unit tests.

Checklist

• Does my change need to be backported to a previous release?

  • What backport versions were discussed with the Maintainers in the Issue?

  Shouldn't need backport.

• I made sure to update CHANGELOG.md.

  Remember, the CHANGELOG needs to mention:

  • Any new features
  • Any changes to our included version of Envoy
  • Any non-backward-compatible changes
  • Any deprecations

• This is unlikely to impact how Ambassador performs at scale.

  Remember, things that might have an impact at scale include:

  • Any significant changes in memory use that might require adjusting the memory limits
  • Any significant changes in CPU use that might require adjusting the CPU limits
  • Anything that might change how many replicas users should use
  • Changes that impact data-plane latency/scalability

• My change is adequately tested.

  Remember when considering testing:

  • Your change needs to be specifically covered by tests.
    • Tests need to cover all the states where your change is relevant: for example, if you add a behavior that can be enabled or disabled, you'll need tests that cover the enabled case and tests that cover the disabled case. It's not sufficient just to test with the behavior enabled.
  • You also need to make sure that the entire area being changed has adequate test coverage.
    • If existing tests don't actually cover the entire area being changed, add tests.
    • This applies even for aspects of the area that you're not changing – check the test coverage, and improve it if needed!
  • We should lean on the bulk of code being covered by unit tests, but...
  • ... an end-to-end test should cover the integration points

• I updated CONTRIBUTING.md with any special dev tricks I had to use to work on this code efficiently.

• The changes in this PR have been reviewed for security concerns and adherence to security best practices.

[Alice-Lilith]

Sounds good to me. @kflynn, any concerns or shall I kick-off CI for this?

[kflynn]

@Alice-Lilith i think running CI sounds great, thanks!