There's no need to include the build time, author, and copyright info
in the output of "fscrypt --version". This information is:

  - Overly complex (the current string is hard to parse)
  - Inaccurate (there are other authors than just me)
  - Unnecessary (the Apache 2 license is for Source Code)
  - Makes reproducible builds impossible

The default version string is just fine.

Signed-off-by: Joe Richey <joerichey@google.com>

If trying to unlock a v2-encrypted directory fails because the kernel
lacks support for v2 policies, show a better error message.  This can
happen if someone downgrades their kernel or tries to access encrypted
directories on removable storage from a computer with an older kernel.

Detecting this case is difficult since all we have to go with is EACCES
when opening the directory.  Implement a heuristic where if get EACCES,
we actually have read access to the directory, and the kernel doesn't
support v2 policies, we show the improved error message.

Before:

  # fscrypt unlock dir
  [ERROR] fscrypt unlock: open dir: permission denied

After:

  # fscrypt unlock dir
  [ERROR] fscrypt unlock: open dir: permission denied

  This may be caused by the directory using a v2 encryption policy and
  the current kernel not supporting it. If indeed the case, then this
  directory can only be used on kernel v5.4 and later. You can create
  directories accessible on older kernels by changing policy_version to
  1 in /etc/fscrypt.conf.

If trying to encrypt a directory using a v2 policy fails due to the
kernel lacking support for v2 policies, show a better error message.

One way this can happen is if someone runs 'fscrypt setup' with a new
kernel and then downgrades to an old kernel.

Before:

  # echo -n hunter2 | fscrypt encrypt dir --source=custom_passphrase --name=foo --quiet
  [ERROR] fscrypt encrypt: inappropriate ioctl for device: system error: could not add key to the keyring

After:

  # echo -n hunter2 | fscrypt encrypt dir --source=custom_passphrase --name=foo --quiet
  [ERROR] fscrypt encrypt: kernel is too old to support v2 encryption policies

  v2 encryption policies are only supported by kernel version 5.4 and
  later. Either use a newer kernel, or change policy_version to 1 in
  /etc/fscrypt.conf.

v2 encryption policies are now recommended, due to various security and
usability advantages over v1 policies.  Many people have been running
into the usability problems with v1, so it's desirable to get people
onto v2 without having to manually opt-in.

Therefore, when 'fscrypt setup' creates /etc/fscrypt.conf, enable
policy_version 2 automatically if the kernel supports it.

I decided to go with this solution over the policy_version "auto" I
suggested originally because this way is simpler, it can still be
changed to "auto" later if desired, and "auto" might require changing
how we parse the config file (since currently the config file is mapped
directly to a protobuf where policy_version is an 'int' and is shared
with EncryptionOptions).

Resolves https://github.com/google/fscrypt/issues/182

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.

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