Since opening an encrypted regular file that is locked fails with
ENOKEY, getting the encryption policy of such a file is not possible.
As a result, 'fscrypt status' and 'fscrypt lock' fail on such files.
Provide a better error message that tries to explain what is going on.

Resolves https://github.com/google/fscrypt/issues/393

Annoyingly, for JSON formatting protojson randomly selects a spacing
method (one space or two spaces) depending on a hash of some sections of
the Go binary, to discourage depending on its output being stable.  This
breaks some checks in the CLI tests of the contents of fscrypt.conf and
the output of 'fscrypt status'.  As there doesn't appear to be a
straightforward alternative currently, for now just update the tests to
take into consideration the possible extra space.

github.com/golang/protobuf/proto has been deprecated in favor of
google.golang.org/protobuf/proto, so migrate to the non-deprecated one.

Currently, fscrypt policies and protectors are world readable, as they
are created with mode 0644.  While this can be nice for use cases where
users share these files, those use cases seem to be quite rare, and it's
not a great default security-wise since it exposes password hashes to
all users.  While fscrypt uses a very strong password hash algorithm, it
would still be best to follow the lead of /etc/shadow and keep this
information non-world-readable.

Therefore, start creating these files with mode 0600.

Of course, if users do actually want to share these files, they have the
option of simply chmod'ing them to a less restrictive mode.  An option
could also be added to make fscrypt use the old mode 0644; however, the
need for that is currently unclear.

Since commit 4c7c6631cc5a ("Set owner of login protectors to correct
user"), login protectors are made owned by the user when root creates
one on a user's behalf.  That's good, but the same isn't true of other
files that get created at the same time:

- The policy protecting the directory
- The protector link file, if the policy is on a different filesystem
- The recovery protector, if the policy is on a different filesystem
- The recovery instructions file

In preparation for setting all metadata files to mode 0600, start making
all these files owned by the user in this scenario as well.

The metadata validation checks introduced by the previous commits are
good, but to reduce the attack surface it would be much better to avoid
reading and parsing files owned by other users in the first place.

There are some possible use cases for users sharing fscrypt metadata
files, but I think that for the vast majority of users it is unneeded
and just opens up attack surface.  Thus, make fscrypt (and pam_fscrypt)
not process policies or protectors owned by other users by default.
Specifically,

   * If fscrypt or pam_fscrypt is running as a non-root user, only
     policies and protectors owned by the user or by root can be used.

   * If fscrypt is running as root, any policy or protector can be used.
     (This is to match user expectations -- starting a sudo session
     should gain rights, not remove rights.)

   * If pam_fscrypt is running as root, only policies and protectors
     owned by root can be used.  Note that this only applies when the
     root user themselves has an fscrypt login protector, which is rare.

Add an option 'allow_cross_user_metadata' to /etc/fscrypt.conf which
allows restoring the old behavior for anyone who really needs it.

World-writable directories are not appropriate for some systems, so
offer a choice of single-user-writable and world-writable modes, with
single-user-writable being the default.  Add a new documentation section
to help users decide which one to use.

I'm not sure how this passed the GitHub checks.

filesystem: store mountpoint in link files as a fallback

Make remove-protector-from-policy work even if the protector cannot be
loaded (for example, due to having been deleted already).

Fixes https://github.com/google/fscrypt/issues/258
Fixes https://github.com/google/fscrypt/issues/272