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.

When an fscrypt command fails and prints an error message, in some cases
it isn't clear that the message is actually an error, e.g.:

    fscrypt encrypt: login protectors do not need a name

Make it clear by always prefixing the message with "[ERROR] ", e.g.

    [ERROR] fscrypt encrypt: login protectors do not need a name

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

When 'fscrypt setup' sees that /etc/fscrypt.conf doesn't exist, don't
ask for confirmation before creating it.  Just do it.  This is the
normal use, and there's not a good reason to ask the user to confirm it.

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.

Implement adding/removing v2 encryption policy keys to/from the kernel.
The kernel requires that the new ioctls FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY and
FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY be used for this.  Root is not required.

However, non-root support brings an extra complication: the kernel keeps
track of which users have called FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY for the same
key.  FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY only works as one of these users, and
it only removes the calling user's claim to the key; the key is only
truly removed when the last claim is removed.

Implement the following behavior:

- 'fscrypt unlock' and pam_fscrypt add the key for the user, even if
  other user(s) have it added already.  This behavior is needed so that
  another user can't remove the key out from under the user.

- 'fscrypt lock' and pam_fscrypt remove the key for the user.  However,
  if the key wasn't truly removed because other users still have it
  added, 'fscrypt lock' prints a warning.

- 'fscrypt status' shows whether the directory is unlocked for anyone.

Don't force the user to provide a --user argument when running fscrypt
as root if they're doing something where the TargetUser isn't actually
needed, such as provisioning/deprovisioning a v1 encryption policy
to/from the filesystem keyring, or creating a non-login protector.

Also don't set up the user keyring (or check for it being set up) if it
won't actually be used.

Finally, if we'll be provisioning/deprovisioning a v1 encryption policy
to/from the filesystem keyring, make sure the command is running as
root, since the kernel requires this.

Add support for 'fscrypt lock'.  This command "locks" a directory,
undoing 'fscrypt unlock'.

When the filesystem keyring is used, 'fscrypt lock' also detects when a
directory wasn't fully locked due to some files still being in-use.  It
can then be run again later to try to finish locking the files.

Linux v5.4 and later allows fscrypt keys to be added/removed directly
to/from the filesystem via the new ioctls FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY and
FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY.  Among other benefits, these fix the key
visibility problems that many users have been running into, where system
services and containers can't access encrypted files.

Allow the user to opt-in to using these new ioctls for their existing
encrypted directories by setting in their /etc/fscrypt.conf:

	"use_fs_keyring_for_v1_policies": true

Note that it can't really be on by default, since for v1 policies the
ioctls require root, whereas user keyrings don't.  I.e., setting this to
true means that users will need to use 'sudo fscrypt unlock', not
'fscrypt unlock'.  v2 policies won't have this restriction.