During an incremental send, if we have delayed rename operations for inodes
that were children of directories which were removed in the send snapshot,
we can end up accessing incorrect items in a leaf or accessing beyond the
last item of the leaf due to issuing utimes operations for the removed
inodes. Consider the following example:

  Parent snapshot:
  .                                                             (ino 256)
  |--- a/                                                       (ino 257)
  |    |--- c/                                                  (ino 262)
  |
  |--- b/                                                       (ino 258)
  |    |--- d/                                                  (ino 263)
  |
  |--- del/                                                     (ino 261)
        |--- x/                                                 (ino 259)
        |--- y/                                                 (ino 260)

  Send snapshot:

  .                                                             (ino 256)
  |--- a/                                                       (ino 257)
  |
  |--- b/                                                       (ino 258)
  |
  |--- c/                                                       (ino 262)
  |    |--- y/                                                  (ino 260)
  |
  |--- d/                                                       (ino 263)
       |--- x/                                                  (ino 259)

1) When processing inodes 259 and 260, we end up delaying their rename
   operations because their parents, inodes 263 and 262 respectively, were
   not yet processed and therefore not yet renamed;

2) When processing inode 262, its rename operation is issued and right
   after the rename operation for inode 260 is issued. However right after
   issuing the rename operation for inode 260, at send.c:apply_dir_move(),
   we issue utimes operations for all current and past parents of inode
   260. This means we try to send a utimes operation for its old parent,
   inode 261 (deleted in the send snapshot), which does not cause any
   immediate and deterministic failure, because when the target inode is
   not found in the send snapshot, the send.c:send_utimes() function
   ignores it and uses the leaf region pointed to by path->slots[0],
   which can be any unrelated item (belonging to other inode) or it can
   be a region outside the leaf boundaries, if the leaf is full and
   path->slots[0] matches the number of items in the leaf. So we end
   up either successfully sending a utimes operation, which is fine
   and irrelevant because the old parent (inode 261) will end up being
   deleted later, or we end up doing an invalid memory access tha
   crashes the kernel.

So fix this by making apply_dir_move() issue utimes operations only for
parents that still exist in the send snapshot. In a separate patch we
will make send_utimes() return an error (-ENOENT) if the given inode
does not exists in the send snapshot.
Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
[Rewrote change log to be more detailed and better organized]
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>