Hi! Could you please point me to the official documentation or recommended approach for launching the host app from a Share Extension? The scenario is: The user is sharing some text to my app. I need launch App and show this text. At the moment, I'm using the following hack: let selector = NSSelectorFromString("sharedApplication") if let app = UIApplication.perform(selector)?.takeUnretainedValue() as? UIApplication, app.responds(to: #selector(UIApplication.open(_:options:completionHandler:))) { app.open(url, options: [:], completionHandler: nil) } This does work, but it's terrible. So, the question: What is the official way to open the host app from within a Share Extension? Thanks!

I have followed this post for creating a Launch Agent that provides an XPC service on macOS using Swift- post link - https://rderik.com/blog/creating-a-launch-agent-that-provides-an-xpc-service-on-macos/ In the swift code the interface of the XPC service is defined by protocols which makes the code nice and neat. I want to implement the XPC service using C APIs for XPC, and C APIs send and receive messages using dictionaries, which need manual handling with conditional statements. I want to know if its possible to go with the protocol based approach with C APIs.

my app need tracking location all the time both foreground and background. Please suggest how to prevent the app from being terminated. or detect when app is terminated.

Hi, I'm working on an application on MacOS. It contains a port-forward feature on TCP protocol. This application has no UI, but a local HTTP server where user can access to configure this application. I found that my application always exit for unknown purpose after running in backgruond for minutes. I think this is about MacOS's background process controlling. Source codes and PKG installers are here: https://github.com/burningtnt/Terracotta/actions/runs/16494390417

I'm a developer using Lazarus Pascal, so converting ObjC and Swift comes with its challenges. I'm trying to figure how to properly use SMAppService to add my application as a login item for the App Store. I have learned that the old method (< macOS 13) uses a helper tool, included in the app bundle, which calls the now deprecated SMLoginItemSetEnabled. Now this is already quite a pain to deal with if you're not using XCode, not to mention converting the headers being rather complicated when you're not experienced with doing this. The "new" method (as of macOS 13) is using SMAppService. Can anyone explain how to use this? The documentation (for me anyway) is a not very clear about that and neither are examples that can be found all over the Internet. My main question is: Can I now use the SMAppService functions to add/remove a login item straight in my application, or is a helper tool still required?

I am developing a macOS non-interactive macOS application which does not show any ui. i want to block main thread and do all the work on worker thread . Once done with work in worker thread, want to unblock main thread by exiting event loop to terminate application. Because i dont want to show any UI or use any Foundation/Cocoa functionality, i am thinking of using CFRunLoop to block main thread from exiting until i finish my work in worker thread. When i tried this in a project, I am able to finish work in worker thread after block main thread using CFRunLoop. I also want this application to be a bundled application, which can be launched by double clicking on application bundle . But when i tried it in my xcode project by launching it using double clicking on application bundle, application keeps on toggling/bouncing in the dock menu with a status "Not responding". Although i am able to complete my work in worker thread. import Foundation let runLoop = CFRunLoopGetCurrent() func workerTask() { DispatchQueue.global().async { print("do its work") sleep(5) // do some work print("calling exit event loop") CFRunLoopStop(runLoop) print ("unblocking main thread") } } workerTask () // blocking main thread print ("blocked main thread") CFRunLoopRun() print ("exit") Why i am getting this application bouncing in doc menu behavior ? I tried by using NSApplicationMain instead of CFRunLoop in my project, in that case i didnt get this behavior . Does NSApplicationMain does some extra work before starting NSRunLoop which i am not doing while using CFRunLoop, which is showing this toggling/Bouncing application icon in Dock menu ? or Is this bouncing app icon issue is related to run loop i am using which is CFRunLoop ? Note : If i dont use a bundled application and use a commandline application then i am able to do all steps in worker thread and exit main thread as i wanted after finishing my work . But i need to do all this in application which can be launched using double clicking (bundled applcation). If not by using CFRunLoop, then how can i achive this ? - Create a application which shows no UI and do all work in worker thread while main thread is blocked. Once work is done unblock main thread and exit. And user should be able to launch application using double click the application icon.

Hello, I have a question about a edge case scenario. Before that some info on my project- I have a launchdaemon that carries out some business logic, it also has XPC listener (built using C APIs). Question- Can there be a situation when the daemon is up and running but the XPC listener is down(due to some error or crash)? If yes then do I need to handle it in my code or launchd will handle it? when the daemon is stopped or shut down, how do I stop the XPC listener? After getting listener object from xpc_connection_create_mach_service should I just call xpc_connection_cancel followed by a call to xpc_release? Thanks! K

Hello, My team has developed a DNS proxy for macOS. We have this set up with a system extension that interacts with the OS, and an always-running daemon that does all the heavy lifting. Communication between the two is DNS request and response packet traffic. With this architecture what are best practices for how the system extension communicates with a daemon? We tried making the daemon a socket server, but the system extension could not connect to it. We tried using XPC but it did not work and we could not understand the errors that were returned. So what is the best way to do this sort of thing?

To establish a privileged helper daemon from a command line app to handle actions requiring root privileges I still use the old way of SMJobBless. But this is deprecated since OSX 10.13 and I want to finally update it to the new way using SMAppService. As I'm concerned with securing it against malicious exploits, do you have a recommended up-to-date implementation in Objective-C establishing a privileged helper and verifying it is only used by my signed app? I've seen the suggestion in the documentation to use SMAppService, but couldn't find a good implementation covering security aspects. My old implementation in brief is as follows: bool runJobBless () { // check if already installed NSFileManager* filemgr = [NSFileManager defaultManager]; if ([filemgr fileExistsAtPath:@"/Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.company.Helper"] && [filemgr fileExistsAtPath:@"/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.company.Helper.plist"]) { // check helper version to match the client // ... return true; } // create authorization reference AuthorizationRef authRef; OSStatus status = AuthorizationCreate (NULL, kAuthorizationEmptyEnvironment, kAuthorizationFlagDefaults, &authRef); if (status != errAuthorizationSuccess) return false; // obtain rights to install privileged helper AuthorizationItem authItem = { kSMRightBlessPrivilegedHelper, 0, NULL, 0 }; AuthorizationRights authRights = { 1, &authItem }; AuthorizationFlags flags = kAuthorizationFlagDefaults | kAuthorizationFlagInteractionAllowed | kAuthorizationFlagPreAuthorize | kAuthorizationFlagExtendRights; status = AuthorizationCopyRights (authRef, &authRights, kAuthorizationEmptyEnvironment, flags, NULL); if (status != errAuthorizationSuccess) return false; // SMJobBless does it all: verify helper against app and vice-versa, place and load embedded launchd.plist in /Library/LaunchDaemons, place executable in /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools CFErrorRef cfError; if (!SMJobBless (kSMDomainSystemLaunchd, (CFStringRef)@"com.company.Helper", authRef, &cfError)) { // check helper version to match the client // ... return true; } else { CFBridgingRelease (cfError); return false; } } void connectToHelper () { // connect to helper via XPC NSXPCConnection* c = [[NSXPCConnection alloc] initWithMachServiceName:@"com.company.Helper.mach" options:NSXPCConnectionPrivileged]; c.remoteObjectInterface = [NSXPCInterface interfaceWithProtocol:@protocol (SilentInstallHelperProtocol)]; [c resume]; // call function on helper and wait for completion dispatch_semaphore_t semaphore = dispatch_semaphore_create (0); [[c remoteObjectProxy] callFunction:^() { dispatch_semaphore_signal (semaphore); }]; dispatch_semaphore_wait (semaphore, dispatch_time (DISPATCH_TIME_NOW, 10 * NSEC_PER_SEC)); dispatch_release (semaphore); [c invalidate]; [c release]; }

We are seeing a strange lifecycle issue on multiple MDM-managed iPads where application(_:didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:) is not called after the device is idle overnight. Even if we terminate the app manually via the app switcher, the next morning the system does not perform a cold launch. Instead, the app resumes directly in: applicationDidBecomeActive(_:) This causes all initialization logic that depends on didFinishLaunching to be completely skipped. This behavior is consistent across four different supervised MDM devices. Environment Devices: iPads enrolled in MDM (supervised) iOS version: 18.3 Xcode: 16.4 macOS: Sequoia 15.7.2 App type: Standard UIKit iOS app App: Salux Audiometer (App Store app) Expected Behavior If the app was terminated manually using the app switcher, the next launch should: Start a new process Trigger application(_:didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:) Follow the normal cold-start lifecycle Actual Behavior After leaving the iPad idle overnight (8–12 hours): The next launch skips didFinishLaunching The app resumes directly in applicationDidBecomeActive No new process is started App behaves as if it had been suspended, even though it was manually terminated Logs (Relevant Extracts) Day 1 — Normal cold launch [12:06:44.152 PM] PROCESS_STARTED [12:06:44.214 PM] DID_FINISH_LAUNCHING_START launchOptions=[] [12:06:44.448 PM] DID_FINISH_LAUNCHING_END We then used the app and terminated it via app switcher. Day 2 — Unexpected resume without cold start [12:57:49.328 PM] APP_DID_BECOME_ACTIVE No PROCESS_STARTED No didFinishLaunching No cold-start logs This means the OS resumed the app from a previous state that should not exist. Reproducible Steps Use an MDM-enrolled iPad. Launch the app normally. Terminate it manually via the multitasking app switcher. Leave the device idle overnight (8–12 hours). Launch the app the next morning. Observe that: didFinishLaunching does not fire applicationDidBecomeActive fires directly Questions for Apple Engineers / Community Is this expected behavior on MDM-supervised devices in iOS 18? Are there any known OS-level changes where terminated apps may be revived from disk/memory? Could MDM restrictions or background restoration policies override app termination? How can we ensure that our app always performs a clean initialization when launched after a long idle period? Additional Information We have full logs from four separate MDM iPads showing identical behavior. Happy to share a minimal reproducible sample if required.

I have several combine pipelines in my watch and iPhone app. While background tasks on the iPhone work correctly (the combine pipelines all activate), on the watch the pipelines do not get activated. I have an internal log reporting that data is being fed to the sources but is not propagating to the sinks. Thoughts?

I posted here https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/805554?page=1#867766022 but posting again for visibility (and let me know how I can file a bug) There was a response in that thread that said you could use the childProgress system to help updating progresses to keep the backgroundTask alive. What I've found is that using childProgresses results in more terminations than if you just updated the progress directly. Here is my setups to test this A BGContinuedProcessingTask that uses URLSessions to upload, and registers the task.progress with the Urlsession Progress Same, but the task.progress gets updated via a UrlSession Callback The second is MUCH more stable out in the field in cellular settings, the first fails extremely frequently. My suspicion is that in the documentation here https://developer.apple.com/documentation/foundation/progress#Reporting-Progress-for-Multiple-Operations it explicitly states The completedUnitCount property for a containing progress object only updates when the suboperation is 100% complete. The fractionCompleted property for a containing progress object updates continuously as work progresses for all suboperations. I wonder if BGContinuedProcessingTask is only looking at completedUnitCount for progress, and not fractionCompleted? In either case, I would love to use the childProgresses because there are bugs with retries by updating the progress manually, so would love some help resolving this, Thanks!

Hello! We are in the progress of migrating a large Swift 5.10 legacy code base over to use Swift 6.0 with Strict Concurrency checking. We have already stumbled across a few weird edge cases where the "guaranteed" @MainActor isolation is violated (such as with @objc #selector methods used with NotificationCenter). However, we recently found a new scenario where our app crashes accessing main actor isolated state on a background thread, and it was surprising that the compiler couldn't warn us. Minimal reproducible example: class ViewController: UIViewController { var isolatedStateString = "Some main actor isolated state" override func viewDidLoad() { exampleMethod() } /// Note: A `@MainActor` isolated method in a `@MainActor` isolated class. func exampleMethod() { testAsyncMethod() { [weak self] in // !!! Crash !!! MainActor.assertIsolated() // This callback inherits @MainActor from the class definition, but it is called on a background thread. // It is an error to mutate main actor isolated state off the main thread... self?.isolatedStateString = "Let me mutate my isolated state" } } func testAsyncMethod(completionHandler: (@escaping () -> Void)) { let group = DispatchGroup() let queue = DispatchQueue.global() // The compiler is totally fine with calling this on a background thread. group.notify(queue: queue) { completionHandler() } // The below code at least gives us a compiler warning to add `@Sendable` to our closure argument, which is helpful. // DispatchQueue.global().async { // completionHandler() // } } } The problem: In the above code, the completionHandler implementation inherits main actor isolation from the UIViewController class. However, when we call exampleMethod(), we crash because the completionHandler is called on a background thread via the DispatchGroup.notify(queue:). If were to instead use DispatchQueue.global().async (snippet at the bottom of the sample), the compiler helpfully warns us that completionHandler must be Sendable. Unfortunately, DispatchGroup's notify gives us no such compiler warnings. Thus, we crash at runtime. So my questions are: Why can't the compiler warn us about a potential problem with DispatchGroup().notify(queue:) like it can with DispatchQueue.global().async? How can we address this problem in a holistic way in our app, as it's a very simple mistake to make (with very bad consequences) while we migrate off GCD? I'm sure the broader answer here is "don't mix GCD and Concurrency", but unfortunately that's a little unavoidable as we migrate our large legacy code base! 🙂

When I install my application, it installs fine and everything works alongwith all the system level daemons but when I reboot the system, none of my daemons are getting launched and this happens only on MacOS 15x, on older version it is working fine. In the system logs, I see that my daemons have been detected as legacy daemons by backgroundtaskmanagementd with Disposition [enabled, allowed, visible, notified] 2025-01-13 21:17:04.919128+0530 0x60e Default 0x0 205 0 backgroundtaskmanagementd: [com.apple.backgroundtaskmanagement:main] Type: legacy daemon (0x10010) 2025-01-13 21:17:04.919128+0530 0x60e Default 0x0 205 0 backgroundtaskmanagementd: [com.apple.backgroundtaskmanagement:main] Flags: [ legacy ] (0x1) 2025-01-13 21:17:04.919129+0530 0x60e Default 0x0 205 0 backgroundtaskmanagementd: [com.apple.backgroundtaskmanagement:main] Disposition: [enabled, allowed, visible, notified] (0xb) But later, it backgroundtaskmanagementd decides to disallow it. 2025-01-13 21:17:05.013202+0530 0x32d Default 0x4d6 89 0 smd: (BackgroundTaskManagement) [com.apple.backgroundtaskmanagement:main] getEffectiveDisposition: disposition=[enabled, disallowed, visible, notified], have LWCR=true 2025-01-13 21:17:05.013214+0530 0x32d Error 0x0 89 0 smd: [com.apple.xpc.smd:all] Legacy job is not allowed to launch: <private> status: 2 Is there anything changed in latest Mac OS which is causing this issue? Also what does this status 2 means. Can someone please help with this error? The plist has is true

TCC Permission Inheritance for Python Process Launched by Swift App in Enterprise Deployment We are developing an enterprise monitoring application that requires a hybrid Swift + Python architecture due to strict JAMF deployment restrictions. We must deploy a macOS application via ABM/App Store Connect, but our core monitoring logic is in a Python daemon. We need to understand the feasibility and best practices for TCC permission inheritance in this specific setup. Architecture Component Bundle ID Role Deployment Swift Launcher com.athena.AthenaSentry Requests TCC permissions, launches Python child process. Deployed via ABM/ASC. Python Daemon com.athena.AthenaSentry.Helper Core monitoring logic using sensitive APIs. Nested in Contents/Helpers/. Both bundles are signed with the same Developer ID and share the same Team ID. Required Permissions The Python daemon needs to access the following sensitive TCC-controlled services: Screen Recording (kTCCServiceScreenCapture) - for capturing screenshots. Input Monitoring (kTCCServiceListenEvent) - for keystroke/mouse monitoring. Accessibility (kTCCServiceAccessibility) - a prerequisite for Input Monitoring. Attempts & Workarounds We have attempted to resolve this using: Entitlement Inheritance: Added com.apple.security.inherit to the Helper's entitlements. Permission Proxy: Swift app maintains active event taps to try and "hold" the permissions for the child. Foreground Flow: Keeping the Swift app in the foreground during permission requests. Questions Is this architecture supported? Can a Swift parent app successfully request TCC permissions that a child process can then use? TCC Inheritance: What are the specific rules for TCC permission inheritance between parent/child processes in enterprise environment? What's the correct approach for this enterprise use case? Should we: Switch to a Single Swift App? (i.e., abandon the Python daemon and rewrite the core logic natively in Swift). Use XPC Services? (instead of launching the child process directly).

On macOS 15.7.1 I'm trying to install an XPC service outside the app (Developer ID). It mostly seems to go ok, but when I set Launch Constraints on Responsible, AMFI complains of a violation, saying the service is responsible for itself, and fails to launch. Removing that constraint (or adding the service itself to the constraint) works fine. The service is an optional download, and installed to /Users/Shared with a LaunchAgent specifying the MachService. The service is correctly launched and seems to pass all codesigning, notarization, and other checks, but the Responsible isn't set to the "calling" app. Is this broken, or working as intended?

I would like to know whether BGContinuedProcessingTaskRequest supports executing asynchronous tasks internally, or if it can only execute synchronous tasks within BGContinuedProcessingTaskRequest? Our project is very complex, and we now need to use BGContinuedProcessingTaskRequest to perform some long-running operations when the app enters the background (such as video encoding/decoding & export). However, our export interface is an asynchronous function, for example video.export(callback: FinishCallback). This export call returns immediately, and when the export completes internally, it calls back through the passed-in callback. So when I call BGTaskScheduler.shared.register to register a BGContinuedProcessingTask, what should be the correct approach? Should I directly call video.export(nil) without any waiting, or should I wait for the export function to complete in the callback? For example: BGTaskScheduler.shared.register(forTaskWithIdentifier: "com.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx", using: nil) { task in guard let continuedTask = task as? BGContinuedProcessingTask else { task.setTaskCompleted(success: false) return } let scanner = SmartAssetsManager.shared let semaphore = DispatchSemaphore(value: 0) continuedTask.expirationHandler = { logError(items: "xwxdebug finished.") semaphore.signal() } logInfo(items: "xwxdebug start！") video.export { _ in semaphore.signal() } semaphore.wait() logError(items: "xwxdebug finished！") }

I’m working with apple dispatch queue in C with the following design: multiple dispatch queues enqueue tasks into a shared context, and a dedicated dispatch queue (let’s call it dispatch queue A) processes these tasks. However, it seems this design has a memory visibility issue. Here’s a simplified version of my setup: I have a shared_context struct that holds: task_lis: a list that stores tasks to be prioritized and run — this list is only modified/processed by dispatch queue A (a serially dispatch queue), so I don't lock around it. cross_thread_tasks: a list that other queues push tasks into, protected by a lock. Other dispatch queues call a function schedule_task that locks and appends a new task to cross_thread_tasks call dispatch_after_f() to schedule a process_task() on dispatch queue A process_task() that processes the task_list and is repeatedly scheduled on dispatch queue A : Swaps cross_thread_tasks into a local list (with locking). Pushes the tasks into task_list. Runs tasks from task_list. Reschedules itself via dispatch_after_f(). Problem: Sometimes the tasks pushed from other threads don’t seem to show up in task_list when process_task() runs. The task_list appears to be missing them, as if the cross-thread tasks aren’t visible. However, if the process_task() is dispatched from the same thread the tasks originate, everything works fine. It seems to be a memory visibility or synchronization issue. Since I only lock around cross_thread_tasks, could it be that changes to task_list (even though modified on dispatch queue A only) are not being properly synchronized or visible across threads? My questions What’s the best practice to ensure shared context is consistently visible across threads when using dispatch queues? Is it mandatory to lock around all tasks? I would love to minimize/avoid lock if possible. Any guidance, debugging tips, or architectural suggestions would be appreciated! =============================== And here is pseudocode of my setup if it helps: struct shared_data { struct linked_list* task_list; } struct shared_context { struct shared_data *data; struct linked_list* cross_thread_tasks; struct thread_mutex* lock; // lock is used to protect cross_thread_tasks } static void s_process_task(void* shared_context){ struct linked_list* local_tasks; // lock and swap the cross_thread_tasks into a local linked list lock(shared_context->lock) swap(shared_context->cross_thread_tasks, local_tasks) unlock(shared_context->lock) // I didnt use lock to protect `shared_context->data` as they are only touched within dispatch queue A in this function. for (task : local_tasks) { linked_list_push(shared_context->data->task_list) } // If the `process_task()` block is dispatched from `schedule_task()` where the task is created, the `shared_context` will be able to access the task properly otherwise not. for (task : shared_context->data->task_list) { run_task_if_timestamp_is_now(task) } timestamp = get_next_timestamp(shared_context->data->task_list) dispatch_after_f(timestamp, dispatch_queueA, shared_context, process_task); } // On dispatch queue B static void schedule_task(struct task* task, void* shared_context) { lock(shared_context->lock) push(shared_context->cross_thread_tasks, task) unlock(shared_context->lock) timestamp = get_timestamp(task) // we only dispatch the task if the timestamp < 1 second. We did this to avoid the dispatch queue schedule the task too far ahead and prevent the shutdown process. Therefore, not all task will be dispatched from the thread it created. if(timestamp < 1 second) dispatch_after_f(timestamp, dispatch_queueA, shared_context, process_task); }

I have been playing with application bundled LaunchAgents: I downloaded Apple sample code, Run the sample code as is, Tweaked the sample code a lot and changed the LaunchAgents IDs and Mach ports IDs, Created new projects with the learnings, etc. After deleting all the Xcode projects and related project products and rebooting my machine several times, I noticed the LaunchAgent are still hanging around in launchctl. If I write launchctl print-disabled gui/$UID (or user/$UID) I can see all my testing service-ids: disabled services = { "com.xpc.example.agent" => disabled "io.dehesa.apple.app.agent" => disabled "io.dehesa.sample.app.agent" => disabled "io.dehesa.example.agent" => disabled "io.dehesa.swift.xpc.updater" => disabled "io.dehesa.swift.agent" => disabled } (there are more service-ids in that list, but I removed them for brevity purposes). I can enable or disable them with launchctl enable/disable service-target, but I cannot really do anything else because their app bundle and therefore PLIST definition are not there anymore. How can I completely remove them from my system? More worryingly, I noticed that if I try to create new projects with bundled LaunchAgents and try to reuse one of those service-ids, then the LaunchAgent will refuse to run (when it was running ok previously). The calls to SMAppService APIs such .agent(plistName:) and register() would work, though.

When my app enter to background, I start a background task, and when Expiration happens, I end my background task. The code likes below: backgroundTask = [[UIApplication sharedApplication] beginBackgroundTaskWithExpirationHandler:^{ dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{ if (backgroundTask != UIBackgroundTaskInvalid) { [[UIApplication sharedApplication] endBackgroundTask:backgroundTask]; backgroundTask = UIBackgroundTaskInvalid; [self cancel]; } }); }]; When the breakpoint is triggered at the endBackgroundTask line, I also get the following log: [BackgroundTask] Background task still not ended after expiration handlers were called: <UIBackgroundTaskInfo: 0x282d7ab40>: taskID = 36, taskName = Called by MyApp, from MyMethod, creationTime = 892832 (elapsed = 26). This app will likely be terminated by the system. Call UIApplication.endBackgroundTask(:) to avoid this. The log don't appear every time, so why is that? Is there something wrong with my code?