ram_block_discard_range() cannot possibly do the right thing in
MAP_PRIVATE file mappings in the general case.

To achieve the documented semantics, we also have to punch a hole into
the file, possibly messing with other MAP_PRIVATE/MAP_SHARED mappings
of such a file.

For example, using VM templating -- see commit b17fbbe5 ("migration:
allow private destination ram with x-ignore-shared") -- in combination with
any mechanism that relies on discarding of RAM is problematic. This
includes:
* Postcopy live migration
* virtio-balloon inflation/deflation or free-page-reporting
* virtio-mem

So at least warn that there is something possibly dangerous is going on
when using ram_block_discard_range() in these cases.

Message-ID: <20230706075612.67404-2-david@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Mario Casquero <mcasquer@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>