Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

Rust: query evaluation ~15× slower on 2.26.4 vs 2.26.3 (4 min → 45–60 min, type-inference/data-flow stage)

Open
#22,463 3 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
4/5
Estimated time
3-5 days
Newbie friendliness
45/100
Issue type
Bug
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
rust

Research direction

Compare CodeQL bundles 2.26.3 and 2.26.4 using the reported Rust workspace and review commits 52cbb679, e9bd6988, ce360c4f, 5f76c946, and 1d6ac57d. Collect the suggested evaluator-log or tuple-counting output if needed, then determine whether the callback, rust-analyzer, or macro changes explain the regression. Done means identifying the cause and a supported fix or tuning option.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

Description of the issue

After the CodeQL bundle moved from 2.26.3 to 2.26.4, Rust analysis of our workspace went from ~4 minutes to ~45–60 minutes per run, with no change on our side. The extra time is almost entirely in query evaluation — the type-inference / data-flow stage — not extraction.

Setup

  • GitHub code scanning default setup (so the bundle version is whatever the action ships; codeql-action v4.37.9 bumped the default bundle to 2.26.4 on 2026-08-26).
  • build-mode: none, ubuntu-latest hosted runner (2 vCPU, CODEQL_THREADS=2, CODEQL_RAM=6914).
  • Private Rust workspace: 15 crates, ~470k lines of Rust (roughly a third of that under tests/), ~720 packages in Cargo.lock, edition 2021. Standard async web-service stack — nothing exotic in the code.
  • The default query suite (36 queries).

What changed / what didn't

We compared the last run on 2.26.3 and the first run on 2.26.4:

  • Same github/codeql-action commit, same runner image.
  • Same commit of our code (identical merge base; no diff at all in Cargo.toml / Cargo.lock).
  • ~150 consecutive runs on 2.26.3 over the preceding four weeks: all 2–4 min. 50+ consecutive runs on 2.26.4 since: all 41–59 min. No overlap.

Timings from the job logs

Stage 2.26.3 2.26.4
total duration (Extract) 12.8 s 59 s
diagnostics/DataFlowConsistencyCounts 2m01s (slowest query) ~30 min
diagnostics/TypeInferenceConsistencyCounts 58 s ~17 min
diagnostics/SsaConsistencyCounts 50 s ~13 min
summary/NodesWithTypeAtLengthLimit < 1 s ~22 min
diagnostics/UnresolvedMacroCalls 6m11s
whole security/* data-flow batch (CWE-089/SqlInjection, CWE-312/CleartextLogging, CWE-319/UseOfHttp, CWE-327/BrokenCryptoAlgorithm, …) well under a minute each ~30 min each (shared batch)

So extraction got ~5× slower but is still small; evaluation of everything downstream of type inference got roughly 15–30× slower.

Suspected cause

Looking at the Rust changes between codeql-cli/v2.26.3 and codeql-cli/v2.26.4, the ones that touch the stage that regressed are:

  • 52cbb679 "Rust: Evaluate mayInvokeCallback in type inference stage"
  • e9bd6988 "Rust: Assume callbacks will be invoked in library functions"
  • the rust-analyzer upgrade to 0.0.328 (ce360c4f, 5f76c946) and the derive-macro expansion restore (1d6ac57d).

The first two look like they widen the call graph feeding type inference, which is consistent with every data-flow query slowing down together. Happy to be corrected — that's inferred from the commit list, not from profiling.

One other difference we noticed in the extractor output on 2.26.4: a handful of new macro expansion failed for '$crate::count' warnings on the metrics crate's counter!-style macros that did not appear on 2.26.3. Possibly unrelated, mentioning it in case it points at the rust-analyzer upgrade.

What would help

  • Is this a known regression in 2.26.4, and is there a tuning knob (e.g. an extractor option, or a way to cap the callback assumption) short of pinning the bundle?
  • If profiling output from a run would help, tell me what to collect (--evaluator-log / --tuple-counting etc.) and I'll attach it.

We can pin codeql-bundle-v2.26.3 via advanced setup in the meantime.

Dominant language
CodeQL
Stars
10.1k
Forks
2.1k
Avg merge
2d 16h
Merged PRs (30d)
143

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from github/codeql

All issues in github/codeql

Similar issues

More Compilers issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.