Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Use canonical address for cleanup - #1031
Conversation
Sangho Lee (sangho2)
commented
Jul 16, 2026
Oh. PR #1028 does include a fix for this issue (https://github.com/microsoft/litebox/pull/1028/changes#diff-88109e004129104c151bad9c778ad09fd0ef7a63bf21e60837b918f2970e4ffcR305-R320). A separate PR like this one should be better. One difference is that my PR explicitly handles two canonical ranges, while yours relies on the API itself? |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
8272b3e to
fd6bbe9CompareSigned-off-by: Angelina Vu <angelinavu@microsoft.com>
fd6bbe9 to
46f40b0Compare🤖 SemverChecks 🤖 No breaking API changes detected Note: this does not mean API is unchanged, or even that there are no breaking changes; simply, none of the detections triggered. |
Angelina Vu (athvu)
commented
Jul 17, 2026
Thanks for the review Sangho Lee (@sangho2). Should I change this PR to handle the low and high canonical halves separately or leave it as is crossing the non-canonical hole? |
Sangho Lee (sangho2)
commented
Jul 17, 2026
I think there is no technical difference, so up to you (both have pros and cons). I'll approve this PR. Thanks! |
Weidong Cui (wdcui)
commented
Jul 17, 2026
Sangho Lee (@sangho2) , should this commit be cherry picked to ulitebox? |
Sangho Lee (sangho2)
commented
Jul 17, 2026
Yes. that's my plan. |
This PR changes the cleanup_page_table_frames function to calculate the end address using KERNEL_OFFSET directly so that the address is canonical.