clippy: deny perf and redundant_clone lints

[nagisa]

Problem / Summary of Changes

I saw #10119 and figured that we might as well enable the perf related lints in our code to get less of these issues landed in the first place. Interestingly, though, this lint did not detect the exact problem in svm and I'm surprised there were no issues that clippy::perf flagged, so I'd be willing to drop that part of the PR.

[mergify]

The Firedancer team maintains a line-for-line reimplementation of the
native programs, and until native programs are moved to BPF, those
implementations must exactly match their Agave counterparts.
If this PR represents a change to a native program implementation (not
tests), please include a reviewer from the Firedancer team. And please
keep refactors to a minimum.

[LucasSte]

I believe this is a good change to have. @brooksprumo and @steviez would you mind having a look?

@nagisa I think you need to run cargo +nightly fmt --all to fix the lint errors in CI.

[brooksprumo]

I think you need to run cargo +nightly fmt --all to fix the lint errors in CI.

If you do not specify the same nightly version, then you may end up with different formatting and still fail CI. Here's the cmd you want:

cargo +nightly-2025-09-14 fmt --all -- --check

or what I do is run

./cargo nightly fmt

which uses the repo's cargo cmd and selects the correct nightly for you.

[brooksprumo]

Signing off for these files:

• accounts-db/src/accounts.rs
• core/tests/snapshots.rs
• runtime/src/bank/accounts_lt_hash.rs
• runtime/src/serde_snapshot.rs

And also the snapshot changes in core/src/validator.rs.

[steviez]

and figured that we might as well enable the perf related lints in our code to get less of these issues landed in the first place

Sounds great and agree with the direction. Same nit / question as Brooks; otherwise, I'll gradually review. Looks like you have a merge conflict in addition to the fmt issue that failed CI. I'll +1 Brooks' comment that I do the following to ensure I run the correct version

./cargo nightly fmt

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.15385% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.9%. Comparing base (2c5ff3c) to head (f5c2e65).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #10121     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage    82.9%    82.9%   -0.1%     
=========================================
  Files         839      839             
  Lines      316033   316033             
=========================================
- Hits       262233   262226      -7     
- Misses      53800    53807      +7     

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[steviez]

On the surface, it isn't clear to me why creating shared_account_ref and then explicitly dropping later is required

[nagisa]

yeah, fair enough. I'll think about how to express this in a more self-explanatory way...

[nagisa]

I ended up keeping the original flow but added an explicit use of shared_account closer to the asserts to reinforce the shared nature of shared_account.

[alexpyattaev]

To move this from standstill, could we split this into smaller, more focused PRs which would not require multiple teams to approve?

[nagisa]

Sure. I can do that… later.

[nagisa]

This for the most part has been whittled down to just core libraries and the vote program. I think this is now small enough that it should be fine to land with one approving reviewer.

[steviez]

LGTM with @apfitzge's confirmation on that one point in banking_stage.rs

[nagisa]

Double-checked just now that with master merged in the clippy passes so there should be no fallout.