lib: reject SharedArrayBuffer in web APIs per spec

[thisalihassan]

The WebIDL spec requires BufferSource/ArrayBufferView (without AllowShared) to reject SharedArrayBuffer and views backed by one.
Node.js web APIs handle this inconsistently, moved the SAB BufferSource/ArrayBufferView validators from internal/crypto/webidl into the shared internal/webidl module and fixes the non-compliant call sites:

• ReadableStreamBYOBReader.read() failed late at transfer now rejects upfront with a clear error
• ReadableByteStreamController.enqueue() same as above

Blob constructor changes (semver-major) will be submitted as a separate PR.

Quick Research:
Deno already rejects these cases while Bun does not (as of Bun 1.3).

Refs: #59688

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/crypto

[Renegade334]

The webstream changes are not semver-major IMO, as passing a shared view is currently a broken operation – this change simply validates the buffer up-front, rather than throwing a difficult-to-catch exception when data starts flowing.

As such, this could be split down into two PRs, one semver-patch for the webstream changes, one semver-major for blob.

The compression stream change here is unnecessary because the underlying adapter doesn't accept shared array buffers, so the validation change here is a no-op. (ref #62163)

[thisalihassan]

@Renegade334 thanks for the detailed feedback.

1. passing SAB backed views already throws during transfer I am just failing earlier with a clearer message
2. Makes sense to split this into two PRs. I will separate the Blob change (semver-major) once this lands, will wait for other maintainers to weigh in on the approach.
3. Will revert compression stream changes as covered by your PR already

I will check how the adapter handles it with your #62163 in mind.

[thisalihassan]

@panva @Renegade334 can we drop semver-major label and add semver-patch instead? As I have reverted the blob changes

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.69%. Comparing base (2071c44) to head (7909167).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #62632   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   89.68%   89.69%           
=======================================
  Files         706      706           
  Lines      218143   218191   +48     
  Branches    41732    41742   +10     
=======================================
+ Hits       195650   195699   +49     
+ Misses      14402    14401    -1     
  Partials     8091     8091           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/crypto/webidl.js	98.38% <100.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
lib/internal/webidl.js	96.17% <100.00%> (+0.47%)	⬆️
lib/internal/webstreams/readablestream.js	98.34% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

... and 27 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/72715/

[panva]

@thisalihassan please rebase on top of main

[thisalihassan]

@panva done

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/72719/

[aduh95]

Do we need this check given that getDataViewOrTypedArrayBuffer will throw if V is not an ArrayBufferView?