In checkEncryptable(), check whether the directory is already encrypted
before checking whether it's empty.

Also improve the error message for when a directory is nonempty.

Finally, translate keyring.ErrKeyAddedByOtherUsers and
keyring.ErrKeyFilesOpen into errors which include the directory.

Introduce filesystem.ErrEncryptionNotEnabled and
filesystem.ErrEncryptionNotSupported which include the Mount as context,
and translate the corresponding metadata/ errors into them.  Then make
these errors show much better suggestions.

Also replace lots of other filesystem/ errors with either custom types
or with unnamed one-off errors that include more context.  Fix backwards
wrapping in lots of cases.

Finally, don't include the mountpoint in places where it's not useful,
like OS-level errors that already include the path.

ErrBadOwners:
	Rename to ErrDirectoryNotOwned for clarity, move it from
	cmd/fscrypt/ to metadata/ where it better belongs, and improve
	the message.

ErrEncrypted:
	Rename to ErrAlreadyEncrypted for clarity, and include the path.

ErrNotEncrypted:
	Include the path.

ErrBadEncryptionOptions:
	Include the path and bad options.

ErrEncryptionNotSupported:
ErrEncryptionNotEnabled:
	Don't wrap with "get encryption policy %s", in preparation for
	wrapping these with filesystem-level context instead.

Also avoid mixing together the error handling for the "get policy" and
"set policy" ioctls.  Make it very clear how we're handling the errors
from each ioctl.

'fscrypt lock' on a v1-encrypted directory doesn't warn about in-use
files, as the kernel doesn't provide a way to easily detect it.

Instead, implement a heuristic where we check whether a subdirectory can
be created.  If yes, then the directory must not be fully locked.

Make both 'fscrypt lock' and 'fscrypt status' use this heuristic.

Resolves https://github.com/google/fscrypt/issues/215

Allow overriding the mountpoint where login protectors are stored by
setting the FSCRYPT_ROOT_MNT environmental variable.  The CLI tests need
this to avoid touching the real "/".

There's no real need to allow users to choose the key description prefix
(a.k.a. the "service"), since on ext4 and f2fs we can just use "ext4"
and "f2fs" for compatibility with all kernels both old and new, and on
other filesystems we can just use "fscrypt".  So, let's do that.

Since this removes the point of the "--legacy" option to 'fscrypt setup'
and the "compatibility" field in /etc/fscrypt.conf, remove those too.

Specifically, we start ignoring the "compatibility" in existing config
files and not writing it to new ones.  The corresponding protobuf field
number and name are reserved.  We stop accepting the "--legacy" option
at all, although since it was default true and there was no real reason
for anyone to change it to false, probably no one will notice.  If
anyone does, they should just stop specifying the option.

Note that this change only affects user keyrings and thus only affects
v1 encryption policies, which are deprecated in favor of v2 anyway.

While it's important to generate a recovery passphrase in the linked
protector case to avoid data loss if the system is reinstalled, some
people really don't want it (even though it can be safely ignored as it
almost certainly has far more entropy than the login passphrase).

As a compromise, prompt for y/n before generating it, with default y.
Also, to allow disabling the recovery passphrase during noninteractive
use, add a --no-recovery command-line option.

Update https://github.com/google/fscrypt/issues/186

Move the deferred locking and deletion of the policy on failure to the
correct places, so that it's done in all failure cases, including in the
case where adding the recovery protector fails.

Also make the recovery protector be locked and deleted on failure.

Finally, put all the code to do deferred deprovisioning of the policy in
the same place: right after it's provisioned.

If a user re-installs their system (or otherwise loses the /.fscrypt
directory on the root filesystem) they also lose access to any login
passphrase-protected directories on other filesystems, unless additional
protectors were manually added.  This can be unexpected, as it may be
expected that the old login passphrase would still work.

We can't really fix this by storing a login protector on every
filesystem because:

- If a user were to have N login protectors, it would take them N times
  longer to log in, as every login protector would need to be unlocked.

- If a user were to change their login passphrase while any external
  volumes were unmounted, login protectors would get out of sync.

- It's preferable that an external volume isn't unlockable by itself
  using only a login passphrase, as login passphrases are often weak.

Instead, generate a recovery passphrase when creating a login
passphrase-protected directory on a non-root filesystem.

The recovery passphrase is added as a custom_passphrase protector, thus
giving the policy two protectors: one pam_passphrase and one
custom_passphrase.  Then this passphrase is written to a file in the new
encrypted directory.  Writing the passphrase to a file here is okay
since it's encrypted, but it's obviously useless by itself; it's up to
the user to store this passphrase somewhere else if they need it.

Use a recovery passphrase instead of a "recovery code" that encodes the
policy key directly because a passphrase is more user-friendly: it can
safely be made much shorter than a key, and it works just like any other
fscrypt protector.  Also, it's not as critical to allow recovery when
the .fscrypt directory on the *same* filesystem is deleted.

Resolves https://github.com/google/fscrypt/issues/164

Allow root to provide the --all-users option to 'fscrypt lock' to force
an encryption key to be removed from the filesystem (i.e., force an
encrypted directory to be locked), even if other users have added it.

To implement this option, we just need to use the
FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY_ALL_USERS ioctl rather than
FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY.

In theory this option could be implemented for the user keyrings case
too, but it would be difficult and the user keyrings are being
deprecated for fscrypt, so don't bother.