btrfs: send: fix failures when processing inodes with no links

There is a bug causing send failures when processing an orphan directory
with no links. In commit 46b2f4590aab ("Btrfs: fix send failure when
root has deleted files still open")', the orphan inode issue was
addressed. The send operation fails with a ENOENT error because of any
attempts to generate a path for the inode with a link count of zero.
Therefore, in that patch, sctx->ignore_cur_inode was introduced to be
set if the current inode has a link count of zero for bypassing some
unnecessary steps. And a helper function btrfs_unlink_all_paths() was
introduced and called to clean up old paths found in the parent
snapshot. However, not only regular files but also directories can be
orphan inodes. So if the send operation meets an orphan directory, it
will issue a wrong unlink command for that directory now. Soon the
receive operation fails with a EISDIR error. Besides, the send operation
also fails with a ENOENT error later when it tries to generate a path of
it.

Similar example but making an orphan dir for an incremental send:

  $ btrfs subvolume create vol
  $ mkdir vol/dir
  $ touch vol/dir/foo

  $ btrfs subvolume snapshot -r vol snap1
  $ btrfs subvolume snapshot -r vol snap2

  # Turn the second snapshot to RW mode and delete the whole dir while
  # holding an open file descriptor on it.
  $ btrfs property set snap2 ro false
  $ exec 73<snap2/dir
  $ rm -rf snap2/dir

  # Set the second snapshot back to RO mode and do an incremental send.
  $ btrfs property set snap2 ro true
  $ mkdir receive_dir
  $ btrfs send snap2 -p snap1 | btrfs receive receive_dir/
  At subvol snap2
  At snapshot snap2
  ERROR: send ioctl failed with -2: No such file or directory
  ERROR: unlink dir failed. Is a directory

Actually, orphan inodes are more common use cases in cascading backups.
(Please see the illustration below.) In a cascading backup, a user wants
to replicate a couple of snapshots from Machine A to Machine B and from
Machine B to Machine C. Machine B doesn't take any RO snapshots for
sending. All a receiver does is create an RW snapshot of its parent
snapshot, apply the send stream and turn it into RO mode at the end.
Even if all paths of some inodes are deleted in applying the send
stream, these inodes would not be deleted and become orphans after
changing the subvolume from RW to RO. Moreover, orphan inodes can occur
not only in send snapshots but also in parent snapshots because Machine
B may do a batch replication of a couple of snapshots.

An illustration for cascading backups:

  Machine A (snapshot {1..n}) --> Machine B --> Machine C

The idea to solve the problem is to delete all the items of orphan
inodes before using these snapshots for sending. I used to think that
the reasonable timing for doing that is during the ioctl of changing the
subvolume from RW to RO because it sounds good that we will not modify
the fs tree of a RO snapshot anymore. However, attempting to do the
orphan cleanup in the ioctl would be pointless. Because if someone is
holding an open file descriptor on the inode, the reference count of the
inode will never drop to 0. Then iput() cannot trigger eviction, which
finally deletes all the items of it. So we try to extend the original
patch to handle orphans in send/parent snapshots. Here are several cases
that need to be considered:

Case 1: BTRFS_COMPARE_TREE_NEW
       |  send snapshot  | action
 --------------------------------
 nlink |        0        | ignore

In case 1, when we get a BTRFS_COMPARE_TREE_NEW tree comparison result,
it means that a new inode is found in the send snapshot and it doesn't
appear in the parent snapshot. Since this inode has a link count of zero
(It's an orphan and there're no paths for it.), we can leverage
sctx->ignore_cur_inode in the original patch to prevent it from being
created.

Case 2: BTRFS_COMPARE_TREE_DELETED
       | parent snapshot | action
 ----------------------------------
 nlink |        0        | as usual

In case 2, when we get a BTRFS_COMPARE_TREE_DELETED tree comparison
result, it means that the inode only appears in the parent snapshot.
As usual, the send operation will try to delete all its paths. However,
this inode has a link count of zero, so no paths of it will be found. No
deletion operations will be issued. We don't need to change any logic.

Case 3: BTRFS_COMPARE_TREE_CHANGED
           |       | parent snapshot | send snapshot | action
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 subcase 1 | nlink |        0        |       0       | ignore
 subcase 2 | nlink |       >0        |       0       | new_gen(deletion)
 subcase 3 | nlink |        0        |      >0       | new_gen(creation)

In case 3, when we get a BTRFS_COMPARE_TREE_CHANGED tree comparison result,
it means that the inode appears in both snapshots. Here are 3 subcases.

First, when the inode has link counts of zero in both snapshots. Since
there are no paths for this inode in (source/destination) parent
snapshots and we don't care about whether there is also an orphan inode
in destination or not, we can set sctx->ignore_cur_inode on to prevent
it from being created.

For the second and the third subcases, if there are paths in one
snapshot and there're no paths in the other snapshot for this inode. We
can treat this inode as a new generation. We can also leverage the logic
handling a new generation of an inode with small adjustments. Then it
will delete all old paths and create a new inode with new attributes and
paths only when there's a positive link count in the send snapshot.

In subcase 2, the send operation only needs to delete all old paths as
in the parent snapshot. But it may require more operations for a
directory to remove its old paths. If a not-empty directory is going to
be deleted (because it has a link count of zero in the send snapshot)
but there are files/directories with bigger inode numbers under it, the
send operation will need to rename it to its orphan name first. After
processing and deleting the last item under this directory, the send
operation will check this directory, aka the parent directory of the
last item, again and issue a rmdir operation to remove it finally.

Therefore, we also need to treat inodes with a link count of zero as if
they didn't exist in get_cur_inode_state(), which is used in
process_recorded_refs(). By doing this, when checking a directory with
orphan names after the last item under it has been deleted, the send
operation now can properly issue a rmdir operation. Otherwise, without
doing this, the orphan directory with an orphan name would be kept here
at the end due to the existing inode with a link count of zero being
found.

In subcase 3, as in case 2, no old paths would be found, so no deletion
operations will be issued. The send operation will only create a new one
for that inode.

Note that subcase 3 is not common. That's because it's easy to reduce
the hard links of an inode, but once all valid paths are removed,
there are no valid paths for creating other hard links. The only way to
do that is trying to send an older snapshot after a newer snapshot has
been sent.

Reviewed-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: BingJing Chang <bingjingc@synology.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions