src: implement IsInsideNodeModules() in C++

[joyeecheung]

This previously compiles a script and run it in a new context to avoid global pollution, which is more complex than necessary and can be too slow for it to be reused in other cases. The new implementation just checks the frames in C++ which is safe from global pollution, faster and simpler.

The previous implementation also had a bug when the call site is in a ESM, because ESM have URLs as their script names, which don't start with '/' or '\' and will be skipped. The new implementation removes the skipping to fix it for ESM.

[joyeecheung]

The performance doesn't really matter all that much for new Buffer since it's deprecated, so I didn't add a benchmark. But since I plan to reuse IsInsideNodeModules() for require(esm) warning check when it comes from the parent-less require() built for imported CJS in #55217, I did some local benchmarking with this script, and it is faster than the original version:

const array = [];

console.time('new Buffer');
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) {
  array.push(new Buffer(10));
}
console.timeEnd('new Buffer');

❯ node node_modules/new-buffer.js
new Buffer: 52.04ms
❯ ../node/node node_modules/new-buffer.js
new Buffer: 26.604ms

[github-actions]

Failed to start CI

   ⚠  No approving reviews found
   ✘  Refusing to run CI on potentially unsafe PR

https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/11196042300

[juanarbol]

Interesting

[anonrig]

We can add V8 fast api to this to speed things up.

[joyeecheung]

I don't know if it's safe to iterate over the stack in the fast calls - probably safer to leave it to a follow up to avoid regressions if it's not and isn't reproducible from the tests.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/62937/

[joyeecheung]

Rebased to resolve the merge conflict which caused the CI failures. PTAL again @anonrig

[anonrig]

Linter is complaining @joyeecheung

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/62969/

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/62970/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 73.52941% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.40%. Comparing base (deb5eff) to head (c5cfa9c).
Report is 836 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/node_util.cc	70.00%	2 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #55286      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.41%   88.40%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         652      652              
  Lines      186756   186759       +3     
  Branches    36100    36106       +6     
==========================================
- Hits       165126   165109      -17     
- Misses      14906    14915       +9     
- Partials     6724     6735      +11     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/buffer.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/internal/util.js	96.96% <ø> (-0.10%)	⬇️
src/node_util.cc	85.76% <70.00%> (-2.06%)	⬇️

... and 22 files with indirect coverage changes

[joyeecheung]

Backport in #56927