When we are doing a full fsync (bit BTRFS_INODE_NEEDS_FULL_SYNC set) of a
file that has holes and has file extent items spanning two or more leafs,
we can end up falling to back to a full transaction commit due to a logic
bug that leads to failure to insert a duplicate file extent item that is
meant to represent a hole between the last file extent item of a leaf and
the first file extent item in the next leaf. The failure (EEXIST error)
leads to a transaction commit (as most errors when logging an inode do).

For example, we have the two following leafs:

Leaf N:

  -----------------------------------------------
  | ..., ..., ..., (257, FILE_EXTENT_ITEM, 64K) |
  -----------------------------------------------
  The file extent item at the end of leaf N has a length of 4Kb,
  representing the file range from 64K to 68K - 1.

Leaf N + 1:

  -----------------------------------------------
  | (257, FILE_EXTENT_ITEM, 72K), ..., ..., ... |
  -----------------------------------------------
  The file extent item at the first slot of leaf N + 1 has a length of
  4Kb too, representing the file range from 72K to 76K - 1.

During the full fsync path, when we are at tree-log.c:copy_items() with
leaf N as a parameter, after processing the last file extent item, that
represents the extent at offset 64K, we take a look at the first file
extent item at the next leaf (leaf N + 1), and notice there's a 4K hole
between the two extents, and therefore we insert a file extent item
representing that hole, starting at file offset 68K and ending at offset
72K - 1. However we don't update the value of *last_extent, which is used
to represent the end offset (plus 1, non-inclusive end) of the last file
extent item inserted in the log, so it stays with a value of 68K and not
with a value of 72K.

Then, when copy_items() is called for leaf N + 1, because the value of
*last_extent is smaller then the offset of the first extent item in the
leaf (68K < 72K), we look at the last file extent item in the previous
leaf (leaf N) and see it there's a 4K gap between it and our first file
extent item (again, 68K < 72K), so we decide to insert a file extent item
representing the hole, starting at file offset 68K and ending at offset
72K - 1, this insertion will fail with -EEXIST being returned from
btrfs_insert_file_extent() because we already inserted a file extent item
representing a hole for this offset (68K) in the previous call to
copy_items(), when processing leaf N.

The -EEXIST error gets propagated to the fsync callback, btrfs_sync_file(),
which falls back to a full transaction commit.

Fix this by adjusting *last_extent after inserting a hole when we had to
look at the next leaf.

Fixes: 4ee3fad3

 ("Btrfs: fix fsync after hole punching when using no-holes feature")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.14+
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>