`performSyncWorkOnRoot` has only a single caller, and the caller already
computes the next lanes (`getNextLanes`) before deciding to call the
function. So we can pass them as an argument instead of computing the
lanes again.

There was already a TODO comment about this, but it was mostly perf
related. However, @rickhanlonii noticed a discrepancy where the inner
`getNextLanes` call was not being passed the current work-in- progress
lanes. Usually this shouldn't matter because there should never be
work-in-progress sync work; it should finish immediately. There is one
case I'm aware of where we exit the work loop without finishing a sync
render, which is selective hydration, but even then it should switch to
the sync hydration lane, not the normal sync lane. So something else is
probably going on. I suspect it might be related to the
`enableUnifiedSyncLane` experiment.

This is likely related to a regression found internally at Meta. We're
still working on getting a proper regression test; I can come up with a
contrived one but I'm not confident it'll be the same as the actual
regression until we get a better repro.

DiffTrain build for [13d0225](13d0225)

React upstream changes:

- facebook/react#27439
- facebook/react#26763
- facebook/react#27434
- facebook/react#27433
- facebook/react#27424
- facebook/react#27428
- facebook/react#27427
- facebook/react#27315
- facebook/react#27314
- facebook/react#27400
- facebook/react#27421
- facebook/react#27419
- facebook/react#27418

Today when we hydrate an SSR'd RSC response on the client we encounter import chunks which initiate code loading for client components. However we only start fetching these chunks after hydration has begun which is necessarily after the initial chunks for the entrypoint have loaded.

React has upstream changes that need to land which will preinitialize the rendered chunks for all client components used during the SSR pass. This will cause a `<script async="" src... />` tag to be emitted in the head for each chunk we need to load during hydration which allows the browser to start fetching these resources even before the entrypoint has started to execute.

Additionally the implementation for webpack and turbopack is different enough that there will be a new `react-server-dom-turbopack` package in the React repo which should be used when using Turbopack with Next.

This PR also removes a number of patches to React src that proxy loading (`__next_chunk_load__`) and bundler requires (`__next_require__`) through the `globalThis` object. Now the react packages can be fully responsible for implementing chunk loading and all Next needs to do is supply the necessary information such as chunk prefix and crossOrigin attributes necessary for this loading. This information is produced as part of the client-manifest by either a Webpack plugin or Turbopack.

Additionally any modifications to the chunk filename that were previously done at runtime need to be made in the manifest itself now. This means we need to encode the deployment id for skew protection and encode the filename to make it match our static path matching (and resolutions on s3) when using `[` and `]` segment characters.

There are a few followup items to consider in later PRs
1. we currently bundle a node and edge version of react-server-dom-webpack/client. The node version has an implementation for busboy whereas the edge version does not. Next is currently configured to use busboy when handling a fetch action sent as multipart with a node runtime. Ideally we'd only bundle the one platform we are buliding for but some additional refactoring to support better forking is possibly required here

This PR also updates react from 09285d5a7 to d900fadbf.

### React upstream changes

- facebook/react#27439
- facebook/react#26763
- facebook/react#27434
- facebook/react#27433
- facebook/react#27424
- facebook/react#27428
- facebook/react#27427
- facebook/react#27315
- facebook/react#27314
- facebook/react#27400
- facebook/react#27421
- facebook/react#27419
- facebook/react#27418

`performSyncWorkOnRoot` has only a single caller, and the caller already
computes the next lanes (`getNextLanes`) before deciding to call the
function. So we can pass them as an argument instead of computing the
lanes again.

There was already a TODO comment about this, but it was mostly perf
related. However, @rickhanlonii noticed a discrepancy where the inner
`getNextLanes` call was not being passed the current work-in- progress
lanes. Usually this shouldn't matter because there should never be
work-in-progress sync work; it should finish immediately. There is one
case I'm aware of where we exit the work loop without finishing a sync
render, which is selective hydration, but even then it should switch to
the sync hydration lane, not the normal sync lane. So something else is
probably going on. I suspect it might be related to the
`enableUnifiedSyncLane` experiment.

This is likely related to a regression found internally at Meta. We're
still working on getting a proper regression test; I can come up with a
contrived one but I'm not confident it'll be the same as the actual
regression until we get a better repro.

`performSyncWorkOnRoot` has only a single caller, and the caller already
computes the next lanes (`getNextLanes`) before deciding to call the
function. So we can pass them as an argument instead of computing the
lanes again.

There was already a TODO comment about this, but it was mostly perf
related. However, @rickhanlonii noticed a discrepancy where the inner
`getNextLanes` call was not being passed the current work-in- progress
lanes. Usually this shouldn't matter because there should never be
work-in-progress sync work; it should finish immediately. There is one
case I'm aware of where we exit the work loop without finishing a sync
render, which is selective hydration, but even then it should switch to
the sync hydration lane, not the normal sync lane. So something else is
probably going on. I suspect it might be related to the
`enableUnifiedSyncLane` experiment.

This is likely related to a regression found internally at Meta. We're
still working on getting a proper regression test; I can come up with a
contrived one but I'm not confident it'll be the same as the actual
regression until we get a better repro.

DiffTrain build for commit 13d0225.