I have an Xcode project with a main app target, and a dext target which builds a DriverKit driver which is embedded in the main app. That all works, if I build the DriverKit target first, then switch to the app target and build that. The app and the driver work. If I make the Driver target a dependency of the App target, building the Driver fails because a header is not found, thus building the app fails. This doesn't make much sense - why does building a target as a consequence of dependence on another target produce a different result from building the same target manually? Has anyone else seen behavior like this? Have any hints on how to fix it? I've tried comparing the detailed build logs, but they don't shed much light - the lines are very long and the build steps appear to be executed in a different order. One strange thing I notice is that although I am building on an M1 Mac, with "build active architectures only" set to YES for both targets, in the Driver-target-only case, Driver.cpp is compiled for arm64, while in the failure case, Driver.cpp is compiled for x86_64. That doesn't make any sense to me either.

I am working on a Swift package which uses CoreAudio, and includes some tests in a testTarget which use the Testing framework, and a couple of executableTarget targets which exercise the same code. I'm using Xcode 16.2 on macOS 15.3.1. One of the things I do in the test code is create a HAL plugin, then find that plugin using the kAudioHardwarePropertyTranslateUIDToDevice. Finding the plugin that I just created always fails from within a Swift Testing test, unless I run the test which creates the plugin individually first, then separately, run the test which finds the plugin, by clicking on the little arrows next to the function names. If I put the tests in a serialized suite (so creation always happens first, then finding), running the suite always fails - it creates the plugin, but can't find it. If I run the 'find my plugin' test again manually, it is always found. If I call the same functions from a regular executable (the thing created by a "executableTarget" in my .package.swift file), the just-created plugin is always found. Is there a way to mimic the runtime environment of a regular executable in a Swift Testing target, or am I misunderstanding something? this my be related to this issue: https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/issues/76882 but I don't understand it well enough to be sure.

The presentation "create audio drivers with DriverKit" from WWDC 2021 demonstrates how to use a dext to implement a virtual audio driver. It also says " If a virtual audio driver or device is all that is needed, the audio server plug-in driver model should continue to be used". Indeed, in AudioDriverKit/AudioDriverKitTypes.h, there is no IOUserAudioTransportType Virtual, although CoreAudio/AudioHardwareBase.h includes kAudioDeviceTransportTypeVirtual. For one of our products, we require virtual devices to implement a software loopback "cable". We've implemented this using the "traditional" HAL plugin, and as a proof-of-concept, also using a dext. In the dext, I tried setting the transport type to 'virt', which seems to only have the effect of changing the icon shown in Audio Midi Setup. HAL plugins require an installer, and the installer has to kill coreaudiod in a post-install script. You have to turn off SIP to debug them. Just like AudioDriverKit drivers, they are out-of-process and run in a process not owned by the hosting app. Our HAL plugin's interface is property based; we had to write a lot of boiler-plate code to implement required properties. Writing an AudioDriverKit driver is in most respects easier - a lot of the scaffolding is implemented in the base driver, which we only alter where required. Debugging and installation is much easier. The dext works just fine, as far as we can ascertain, just as well as a HAL plugin. So, my question is - is the advice to use a HAL plugin for a virtual device still correct in 2025? And if so, what's the objection? We'd really prefer to ship the AudioDriverKit virtual audio device.

I am having similar problems to this guy on Stack Overflow over a year ago: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/77627852/functions-of-iouserscsiperipheraldevicetype00-class-in-scsiperipheralsdriverkit There are also a few questions on this forum about this object, none of which have answers. I can get my driver to match and instantiate, but nobody calls my UserDetermineDeviceCharacteristics (which does nothing, just returns kIOReturnSuccess) I can attempt to call UserSuspendServices(), UserResumeServices() or UserReportMediumBlockSize() and all of them return kIOReturnUnsupported. It doesn't matter if I've unmounted the disk or not. Is the custom driver supposed to be instantiated beside the kernel's IOSCSIPeripheralDeviceType00, or should it replace it? What should its IOProviderClass be? What should its IOClass be - IOUserService, or something else? see FB19678139 and FB19677920

I've alluded to this before in these posts and there are some posts from others about this, e.g. https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/759845 and I've filed some bugs related to the behavior. FB20212935 FB19451832 FB19450508 FB19450162 FB19449747 Our company owns the USB vendor IDs X and Y . We've been granted a USB transport entitlement for both of those IDs. The crux of the problem is that I want to build a driver for USB vendor ID Y. Xcode's well-hidden auto-generated provisioning profile for my driver contains com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.usb: { idVendor = X; } which is obviously not what I want. Xcode fails to provision the target. But I have another, much older project with an auto-generated provisioning profile containing com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.usb: { idVendor = X; }, { idVendor = Y; } I can build a driver for idVendor Y without problems in this project. But that doesn't help me with my new project. What can I do to fix this? Do I need to request our entitlements again? I fear if I do so, something will get lost in the process. Is there a way to inspect what we have already been granted? - I can't see a "managed entitlements" section on the account portal. I can go through the motions of making a new App ID, then I can see that some Capability Request have been "Assigned", but I don't see what their values are. A second question I have is about the userclient-access entitlement. Are these tied to the bundle ID of the app which claims the access? In other words, if I have two drivers com.mycompany.app1.driver1 com.mycompany.app2.driver2 and I would like to have com.mycompany.app1 communicate with com.mycompany.app1.driver1, I would ask for the com.apple.developer.driverkit.userclient-access capability for com.mycompany.app1.driver1. But must I request that access for each specific app bundle ID that will talk to that driver, or once the entitlement is granted, can I use com.apple.developer.driverkit.userclient-access = { com.mycompany.app1.driver1 } in any of my apps?

I've made a dext and a user client that overrides IOUserSCSIPeripheralDeviceType00, with the object of writing device firmware to the driver. I can gain and relinquish exclusive access to the device, I can call UserReportMediumBlockSize and get back a sensible answer (512). I can build command parameters with the INQUIRY macro from IOUserSCSIPeripheralDeviceHelper.h and send that command successfully using UserSendCB, and I receive sensible-looking Inquiry data from the device. However, what I really want to do is send a WriteBuffer command (opcode 0x3B), and that doesn't work. I have yet to put a bus analyzer on it, but I don't think the command goes out on the bus - there's no valid sense data, and the error returned is 0xe00002bc, or kIOReturnError, which isn't helpful. This is the code I have which doesn't work. kern_return_t driver::writeChunk(const char * buf, size_t atOffset, size_t length, bool lastOne) { DebugMsg("writeChunk %p at %ld for %ld", buf, atOffset, length); SCSIType00OutParameters outParameters; SCSIType00InParameters response; memset(&outParameters, 0, sizeof(outParameters)); memset(&response, 0, sizeof(response)); SetCommandCDB(&outParameters.fCommandDescriptorBlock, 0x3B, // byte 0, opcode WriteBuffer command lastOne ? 0x0E : 0x0F, // byte 1 mode: E=save deferred, F = download and defer save 0, // byte 2 bufferID (atOffset >> 16), // byte 3 (atOffset >> 8), // byte 4 atOffset, // byte 5 (length >> 16), // byte 6 (length >> 8), // byte 7 length, // byte 8 0, // control, byte 9 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0); // bytes 10..15 outParameters.fLogicalUnitNumber = 0; outParameters.fBufferDirection = kIOMemoryDirectionOut; outParameters.fDataTransferDirection = kSCSIDataTransfer_FromInitiatorToTarget; outParameters.fTimeoutDuration = 1000; // milliseconds outParameters.fRequestedByteCountOfTransfer = length; outParameters.fDataBufferAddr = reinterpret_cast<uint64_t>(buf); uint8_t senseBuffer[255] = {0}; outParameters.fSenseBufferAddr = reinterpret_cast<uint64_t>(senseBuffer); outParameters.fSenseLengthRequested = sizeof(senseBuffer); kern_return_t retVal = UserSendCDB(outParameters, &response); return retVal; }

I'm posting this here after reading Quinn's post here: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/799000 The above entitlement is mentioned in IOUSBHostControllerInterface.h. It isn't an entitlement one can add using the + button on the Capabilities panel in Xcode. If I try to add it by hand, Xcode complains that it isn't in my profile. Is this a managed entitlement? We'd like to create a local USB "device" to represent a real device reachable over a network.

I'm trying to help out one of our vendors by building a skeleton PCI dext which they can flesh out. However, I can't seem to get the signing right. I can't sign it at all using no team or my personal team. "Signing for requires a development team", and "Personal development teams ... do not support the System Extension capability". I can't sign the driver because "DriverKit Team Provisioning Profile: doesn't match the entitlements file's value for the com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.pci entitlement. I think this problem occurs because our company has already been assigned a transport.pci entitlement, but for our own PCI vendor ID. But I want to build and test software that works with our vendor's PCI device. I tried generating a profile for the driver manually, it contained only our own company's PCI driver match: IOPCIPrimaryMatch = "0x0000MMMM&0x0000FFFF"; where MMMM is our own PCI vendor ID. Is there a better way to inspect the profile Xcode is using than the postage-stamped sized info popup which truncates the information? I would download the generated profile but it doesn't appear on the profile, but Xcode is accessing it from somewhere. When I look at the available capabilities I can add to an app identifier on the Developer portal, I see com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.usb, which is "development only". There's no "development only" capability for PCI. Does this mean it isn't possible to develop even a proof-of-concept PCI driver without being first granted the DriverKit PCI (Primary Match) entitlement? When adding capabilities to a driver, the list of available capabilities shown in Xcode has one "DriverKit PCI (Primary Match) entry", but if I double click it, two such entries appear in the Signing and Capabilities tab for my driver target. On the Developer portal, when I look at my driver's Identifier, there are two Capabilities labelled DriverKit PCI (Primary Match). Why?

The device I am trying to develop a firmware updater for is an NVMe drive with a USB4 interface. It can connect in USB4 mode (tunneled NVMe), in USB 3 mode or in USB 2 mode. In USB 2 and USB 3 mode, the device descriptor shows one interface with two alternates. Alternate 0 uses the bulk-only protocol, with one IN and one OUT pipe. Alternate 1 uses the UAS protocol, with two IN and two OUT pipes. I use identical code in my driver to send custom CDBs. I can see using IORegistryExplorer that in USB 2 mode, macOS chooses alternate 0, the bulk-only protocol. My custom CDBs and their accompanying data pay loads are put on the bus, more or less as expected. In USB 3 mode, macOS chooses alternate 1, the UAS protocol. My custom CDB is put on the bus, but no payload data is transferred. Is this expected behavior? If so, is there a way to force the OS to choose alternate 0 even when on USB 3, perhaps with another dext? I'll file a bug about this when Feedback Assistant lets me.