Btrfs: fix missing hole after hole punching and fsync when using NO_HOLES

Btrfs: fix missing hole after hole punching and fsync when using NO_HOLES

BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1866678
[ Upstream commit 0e56315ca147b3e60c7bf240233a301d3c7fb508 ]

When using the NO_HOLES feature, if we punch a hole into a file and then
fsync it, there are cases where a subsequent fsync will miss the fact that
a hole was punched, resulting in the holes not existing after replaying
the log tree.

Essentially these cases all imply that, tree-log.c:copy_items(), is not
invoked for the leafs that delimit holes, because nothing changed those
leafs in the current transaction. And it's precisely copy_items() where
we currenly detect and log holes, which works as long as the holes are
between file extent items in the input leaf or between the beginning of
input leaf and the previous leaf or between the last item in the leaf
and the next leaf.

First example where we miss a hole:

  *) The extent items of the inode span multiple leafs;

  *) The punched hole covers a range that affects only the extent items of
     the first leaf;

  *) The fsync operation is done in full mode (BTRFS_INODE_NEEDS_FULL_SYNC
     is set in the inode's runtime flags).

  That results in the hole not existing after replaying the log tree.

  For example, if the fs/subvolume tree has the following layout for a
  particular inode:

      Leaf N, generation 10:

      [ ... INODE_ITEM INODE_REF EXTENT_ITEM (0 64K) EXTENT_ITEM (64K 128K) ]

      Leaf N + 1, generation 10:

      [ EXTENT_ITEM (128K 64K) ... ]

  If at transaction 11 we punch a hole coverting the range [0, 128K[, we end
  up dropping the two extent items from leaf N, but we don't touch the other
  leaf, so we end up in the following state:

      Leaf N, generation 11:

      [ ... INODE_ITEM INODE_REF ]

      Leaf N + 1, generation 10:

      [ EXTENT_ITEM (128K 64K) ... ]

  A full fsync after punching the hole will only process leaf N because it
  was modified in the current transaction, but not leaf N + 1, since it
  was not modified in the current transaction (generation 10 and not 11).
  As a result the fsync will not log any holes, because it didn't process
  any leaf with extent items.

Second example where we will miss a hole:

  *) An inode as its items spanning 5 (or more) leafs;

  *) A hole is punched and it covers only the extents items of the 3rd
     leaf. This resulsts in deleting the entire leaf and not touching any
     of the other leafs.

  So the only leaf that is modified in the current transaction, when
  punching the hole, is the first leaf, which contains the inode item.
  During the full fsync, the only leaf that is passed to copy_items()
  is that first leaf, and that's not enough for the hole detection
  code in copy_items() to determine there's a hole between the last
  file extent item in the 2nd leaf and the first file extent item in
  the 3rd leaf (which was the 4th leaf before punching the hole).

Fix this by scanning all leafs and punch holes as necessary when doing a
full fsync (less common than a non-full fsync) when the NO_HOLES feature
is enabled. The lack of explicit file extent items to mark holes makes it
necessary to scan existing extents to determine if holes exist.

A test case for fstests follows soon.

Fixes: 16e7549f045d33 ("Btrfs: incompatible format change to remove hole extents")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4+
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Khalid Elmously <khalid.elmously@canonical.com>