General: DevForums subtopic: App & System Services > Processes & Concurrency Processes & concurrency covers a number of different technologies: Background Tasks Resources Concurrency Resources — This includes Swift concurrency. Service Management Resources XPC Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Testing Environment: iOS Version: 26.0 Beta 7 Xcode Version: 17.0 Beta 6 Device: iPhone 16 Pro Description: We are implementing the new BGContinuedProcessingTask API and are using the wildcard identifier notation as described in the official documentation. Our Info.plist is correctly configured with a permitted identifier pattern, such as com.our-bundle.export.*. We then register a single launch handler for this exact wildcard pattern. We are performing this registration within a UIViewController, which is a supported pattern as BGContinuedProcessingTask is explicitly exempt from the "register before applicationDidFinishLaunching" requirement, according to the BGTaskScheduler.h header file. The register method correctly returns true, indicating the registration was successful. However, when we then try to submit a task with a unique identifier that matches this pattern (e.g., com.our-bundle.export.UUID), the BGTaskScheduler.shared.submit() call throws an NSInternalInconsistencyException and terminates the app. The error reason is: 'No launch handler registered for task with identifier com.our-bundle.export.UUID'. This indicates that the system is not correctly matching the specific, unique identifier from the submit call to the registered wildcard pattern handler. This behavior contradicts the official documentation. Steps to Reproduce: Create a new Xcode project. In Signing & Capabilities, add "Background Modes" (with "Background processing" checked) and "Background GPU Access". Add a permitted identifier (e.g., "com.company.test.*") to BGTaskSchedulerPermittedIdentifiers in Info.plist. In a UIViewController's viewDidLoad, register a handler for the wildcard pattern. Check that the register method returns true. Immediately after, try to submit a BGContinuedProcessingTaskRequest with a unique identifier that matches the pattern. Expected Results: The submit call should succeed without crashing, and the task should be scheduled. Actual Results: The app crashes immediately upon calling submit(). The console shows an uncaught NSInternalInconsistencyException with the reason: 'No launch handler registered for task with identifier com.company.test.UUID'. Workaround: The issue can be bypassed if we register a new handler for each unique identifier immediately before submitting a request with that same unique identifier. This strongly suggests the bug is in the system's wildcard pattern-matching logic.

Hello, I am trying to implement a subscriber which specifies its own demand for how many elements it wants to receive from a publisher. My code is below: import Combine var array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] struct ArraySubscriber<T>: Subscriber { typealias Input = T typealias Failure = Never let combineIdentifier = CombineIdentifier() func receive(subscription: any Subscription) { subscription.request(.max(4)) } func receive(_ input: T) -> Subscribers.Demand { print("input,", input) return .max(4) } func receive(completion: Subscribers.Completion<Never>) { switch completion { case .finished: print("publisher finished normally") case .failure(let failure): print("publisher failed due to, ", failure) } } } let subscriber = ArraySubscriber<Int>() array.publisher.subscribe(subscriber) According to Apple's documentation, I specify the demand inside the receive(subscription: any Subscription) method, see link. But when I run this code I get the following output: input, 1 input, 2 input, 3 input, 4 input, 5 input, 6 input, 7 publisher finished normally Instead, I expect the subscriber to only "receive" elements 1, 2, 3, 4 from the array. How can I accomplish this?

Testing Environment: iOS: 26.0 Beta 7 Xcode: Beta 6 Description: We are implementing the new BGContinuedProcessingTask API introduced in iOS 26. We have followed the official documentation and WWDC session guidance to configure our project. The Background Modes (processing) and Background GPU Access capabilities have been added in Xcode. The com.apple.developer.background-tasks.continued-processing.gpu entitlement is present and set to in the .entitlements file. The provisioning profile details viewed within Xcode explicitly show that the "Background GPU Access" capability and the corresponding entitlement are included. Despite this correct configuration, when running the app on supported hardware (iPhone 16 Pro), a call to BGTaskScheduler.supportedResources.contains(.gpu) consistently returns false. This prevents us from setting request.requiredResources = .gpu. As a result, when the BGContinuedProcessingTask starts without the GPU resource flag, our internal Metal-based exporter attempts to access the GPU and is terminated by the system, throwing an IOGPUMetalError: Insufficient Permission (to submit GPU work from background). We have performed extensive debugging, including a full reset of the provisioning profile (removing/re-adding capabilities, toggling automatic signing, cleaning build folders, and reinstalling the app), but the issue persists. This strongly suggests a bug in the iOS 26 beta where the runtime is failing to correctly validate a valid entitlement. Additionally, we've observed inconsistent behavior across devices. On an A16-based iPad, the task submits successfully (BGTaskScheduler.submit does not throw an error), but the launch handler is never invoked by the system. On the iPhone 16 Pro, the handler is invoked, but we encounter the supportedResources issue described above. This leads us to ask for clarification on the exact hardware requirements for this feature. We hypothesize that it may be limited to devices that support Apple Intelligence (A17 Pro and newer). Could you please confirm this and provide official documentation on the device support criteria? Steps to Reproduce: Create a new Xcode project. In Signing & Capabilities, add "Background Modes" (with "Background processing" checked) and "Background GPU Access". Add a permitted identifier (e.g., "com.company.test.*") to BGTaskSchedulerPermittedIdentifiers in Info.plist. In application(_:didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:) or a ViewController's viewDidLoad, log the result of BGTaskScheduler.shared.supportedResources.contains(.gpu). Build and run on a physical, supported device (e.g., iPhone 16 Pro). Expected Results: The log should indicate that BGTaskScheduler.shared.supportedResources.contains(.gpu) returns true. Actual Results: The log shows that BGTaskScheduler.shared.supportedResources.contains(.gpu) returns false.

Hello, I'm trying to adopt the new BGContinuedProcessingTask API, but I'm having a little trouble imagining how the API authors intended it be used. I saw the WWDC talk, but it lacked higher-level details about how to integrate this API, and I can't find a sample project. I notice that we can list wildcard background task identifiers in our Info.plist files now, and it appears this is to be used with continued tasks - a user might start one video encoding, then while it is ongoing, enqueue another one from the same app, and these tasks would have identifiers such as "MyApp.VideoEncoding.ABCD" and "MyApp.VideoEncoding.EFGH" to distinguish them. When it comes to implementing this, is the expectation that we: a) Register a single handler for the wildcard pattern, which then figures out how to fulfil each request from the identifier of the passed-in task instance? Or b) Register a unique handler for each instance of the wildcard pattern? Since you can't unregister handlers, any resources captured by the handler would be leaked, so you'd need to make sure you only register immediately before submission - in other words register + submit should always be called as a pair. Of course, I'd like to design my application to use this API as the authors intended it be used, but I'm just not entirely sure what that is. When I try to register a single handler for a wildcard pattern, the system rejects it at runtime (while allowing registrations for each instance of the pattern, indicating that at least my Info.plist is configured correctly). That points towards option B. If it is option B, it's potentially worth calling that out in documentation - or even better, perhaps introduce a new call just for BGContinuedProcessingTask instead of the separate register + submit calls? Thanks for your insight. K Aside: Also, it would be really nice if the handler closure would be async. Currently if you need to await on something, you need to launch an unstructured Task, but that causes issues since BGContinuedProcessingTask is not Sendable, so you can't pass it in to that Task to do things like update the title or mark the BGTask as complete.

My app does really large uploads. Like several GB. We use the AWS SDK to upload to S3. It seemed like using BGContinuedProcessingTask to complete a set of uploads for a particular item may improve UX as well as performance and reliability. When I tried to get BGContinuedProcessingTask working with the AWS SDK I found that the task would fail after maybe 30 seconds. It looked like this was because the app stopped receiving updates from the AWS upload and the task wants consistent updates. The AWS SDK always uses a background URLSession and this is not configurable. I understand the background URLSession runs in a separate process from the app and maybe that is why progress updates did not continue when the app was in the background. Is it expected that BGContinuedProcessingTask and background URLSession are not really compatible? It would not be shocking since they are 2 separate background APIs. Would the Apple recommendation be to use a normal URLSession for this, in which case AWS would need to change their SDK? Or does Apple think that BGContinuedProcessingTask should just not be used with uploads? In other words use an upload specific API. Thanks!

The application is placed into the idle state. Subsequently, the device enters a sleep state. While the device is in sleep, App start background task within the application successfully receives its expirationHandler callback. App received the expiration callback and App called the end BGtask OS did not released the Assertion. Resulting in App getting terminated by the OS for exceeding the BG task Apple Feedback- FB19192371

I have been experimenting with the BGContinuedProcessingTask API recently (and published sample code for it https://github.com/infinitepower18/BGContinuedProcessingTaskDemo) I have noticed that if I lock the phone, the code that runs as part of the task stops executing. My sample code simply updates the progress each second until it gets to 100, so it should be completed in 1 minute 40 seconds. However, after locking the phone and checking the lock screen a few seconds later the progress indicator was in the same position as before I locked it. If I leave the phone locked for several minutes and check the lock screen the live activity says "Task failed". I haven't seen anything in the documentation regarding execution of tasks while the phone is locked. So I'm a bit confused if I encountered an iOS bug here?

Every time macOS goes to sleep the processes get suspended which is expected. But during the sleep period, all processes keep coming back and they all get a small execution window where they make some n/w requests. Regardless of what power settings i have. It also does not matter whether my app is a daemon or not Is there any way that i can disable this so that when system is in sleep, it stays in suspended, no intermittent execution window? I have tried disabling Wake for network access setting but processes still keep getting intermittent execution window. Is there any way that i can prevent my app from coming back while in sleep. I don't want my app to get execution window, perform some executions and then get suspended not knowing when it will get execution window again?

Hello, We're seeing some strange crashes and noticed the following. It's unclear if related or not. The contract for xpc_main, which internally calls dispatch_main, is This function never returns. and they are appropriately peppered with __attribute__((__noreturn__)). Documentation states: This function “parks” the main thread and waits for blocks to be submitted to the main queue. However, internally, dispatch_main calls pthread_exit. pthread_exit's documentation states that: After a thread has terminated, the result of access to local (auto) variables of the thread is undefined. Thus, references to local variables of the exiting thread should not be used for the pthread_exit() value_ptr parameter value. I'd say the two contracts of This function never returns. and thread exiting with its storage released are diametrically opposed and can create nuanced issues. Consider the following code: struct asd { int a; }; struct asd* ptr; void fff(void* ctx) { while(true) { printf("%d\n", ptr->a); ptr->a = (ptr->a + 1); usleep(100000); } } int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) { struct asd zxc; zxc.a = 1; ptr = &zxc; dispatch_async_f(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0), NULL, fff); dispatch_main(); return 0; } This is a gross over-simplification of the code we have, but in the same "spirit". We have a C++ object that is created on the stack and exposes one of its members as a global pointer, with the assumption that it would never release. What I understand from This function never returns is that the calling thread remains dormant and its stack remains alive. What I understand from pthread_exit is that the thread is killed (this is verified with a debugger attached) and its stack storage is released. Another thing that is throwing me off is that no sanitizer that is provided by clang/Xcode catches this issue. I don't see any special handling of the internal pthread_t in libdispatch to keep the stack storage alive. Our code is more complex, but can be solved by allocating the initial object on the heap, rather than on the stack. But still I would like to understand if this is the expected behavior. Perhaps my preconception of __attribute__((__noreturn__)) is wrong, and accessing stack variables post call to a __attribute__((__noreturn__)) function is UB? Thanks

I'm developing a safety-critical monitoring app that needs to fetch data from government APIs every 30 minutes and trigger emergency audio alerts for threshold violations. The app must work reliably in background since users depend on it for safety alerts even while sleeping. Main Challenge: iOS background limitations seem to prevent consistent 30-minute intervals. Standard BGTaskScheduler and timers get suspended after a few minutes in background. Question: What's the most reliable approach to ensure consistent 30-minute background monitoring for a safety-critical app where missed alerts could have serious consequences? Are there special entitlements or frameworks for emergency/safety applications? The app needs to function like an alarm clock - working reliably even when backgrounded with emergency audio override capabilities.

when we use raise in GCD, the signal handler is executed asynchronously, whereas in pthread, it is executed synchronously as expected. example: #include &lt;Foundation/Foundation.h&gt; #include &lt;pthread/pthread.h&gt; static void HandleSignal(int sigNum, siginfo_t* signalInfo, void* userContext) { printf("handle signal %d\n", sigNum); printf("begin sleep\n"); sleep(3); printf("end sleep\n"); } void InstallSignal(void) { static const int g_fatalSignals[] = { SIGABRT, SIGBUS, SIGFPE, SIGILL, SIGPIPE, SIGSEGV, SIGSYS, SIGTRAP, }; int fatalSignalsCount = sizeof(g_fatalSignals) / sizeof(int); struct sigaction action = {{0}}; action.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO | SA_ONSTACK; #if defined(__LP64__) action.sa_flags |= SA_64REGSET; #endif sigemptyset(&amp;action.sa_mask); action.sa_sigaction = &amp;HandleSignal; struct sigaction pre_sa; for(int i = 0; i &lt; fatalSignalsCount; i++) { int sigResult = sigaction(g_fatalSignals[i], &amp;action, &amp;pre_sa); } } void* RaiseAbort(void *userdata) { raise(SIGABRT); printf("signal handler has finished\n"); return NULL; } int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) { InstallSignal(); dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(0, 0), ^{ raise(SIGABRT); // abort(); // abort() is ok RaiseAbort(nullptr); }); // pthread is ok // pthread_t tid; // int ret = pthread_create(&amp;tid, NULL, RaiseAbort, NULL); // if (ret != 0) { // fprintf(stderr, "create thread failed\n"); // return EXIT_FAILURE; // } [[NSRunLoop mainRunLoop] run]; return 0; } console log: signal handler has finished handle signal 6 begin sleep end sleep

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've discovered that a system network extension can communicate with a LaunchDaemon (loaded using SMAppService) over XPC, provided that the XPC service name begins with the team ID. If I move the launchd daemon plist to Contents/Library/LaunchAgents and swap the SMAppService.daemon calls to SMAppService.agent calls, and remove the .privileged option to NSXPCConnection, the system extension receives "Couldn't communicate with a helper application" as an error when trying to reach the LaunchAgent advertised service. Is this limitation by design? I imagine it is, but wanted to check before I spent any more time on it.

Hello 👋 Our team added com.apple.security.temporary-exception.apple-events: com.apple.Terminal recently to our Mac app to be able to tell the terminal to execute a specific command line automatically for the user when clicking a button but we've been rejected during review because of this entitlement so for now we've deleted it and deleted the associated feature. It concerns the following feature (see attachment). Context: Among other things the application enable to review pull request changes (remote) and we would like a button to automatically clone the pull request on disk when user click a button. We would like to use terminal for security reason as when cloning using git command we need ssh keys or other credential and there's no reason (rather than technical ones) that the user provide us such private information that is stored in the ~/.ssh. We prefer think the other way around and tell the user what to execute instead (no credentials involved or shared). We referred to: https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Miscellaneous/Reference/EntitlementKeyReference/Chapters/AppSandboxTemporaryExceptionEntitlements.html I admit it's unclear for me if this will imply a 100% rejection or if these entitlements are deprecated. Is "com.apple.security.temporary-exception.apple-events: com.apple.Terminal" an entitlement that is reserved for special Apple partners ? Is it an entitlement that we should demonstrate usage first ? Or should we completely remove the feature if we distribute through the App Store ? Is Apple advice for other APIs to develop such features (execute command line for the user) when distributing through the App Store ? As said we've disabled the feature for now. Thank you in advance for those who will take time to answer this,

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.

I am trying to create an app bundle with an xpc service. The main app creates a keychain item, and attempts to share (keychain access groups) with the xpc service it includes in its bundle. However, the xpc service always encounters a 'user interaction not allowed' error regardless of how I create the keychain item. kSecAttrAccessiblei is set to kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, the keychain access group is set for both the main app and the xpc service and in the provisioning profile. I've tried signing and notarizing. Is it ever possible for an xpc service to access the keychain? This all on macos 15.5.

Basically the title. I am trying to implement a local notification to trigger, regardless of internet connection, around 3-5pm if a certain array in the app is not empty to get the user to sync unsaved work with the cloud. I wanted to used the BGAppRefreshTask as I saw it was lightweight and quick for just posting a banner notification but after inspecting it in the console, it looks like it needs internet connection to trigger. Is this the case or am I doing something wrong? Should I be using the BGProcessingTask instead?

Hello, I have a question regarding the behavior of BGProcessingTaskRequest when the app is force-quit by the user via the App Switcher. Based on common understanding and various discussions — including the following Apple Developer Forum threads: Waking up an iOS app after app is … | Apple Developer Forums Will BGAppRefreshTaskRequest will … | Apple Developer Forums Background fetch after app is forc… | Apple Developer Forums …it is widely understood that iOS prevents background execution (such as background fetch, push notifications, or BGTaskScheduler) after a user force-quits an app via the App Switcher. However, in my app, I have observed that a scheduled BGProcessingTaskRequest still executes even after the app has been explicitly terminated via App Switcher. The task is scheduled using submit(_:error:), and it is clearly running some time after the app has been closed by the user. That said, the task does run, but it appears to operate under tighter constraints — for example, it may be allowed to run for a shorter duration, and network requests appear to be more restricted compared to when the app is not force-quit. My questions are: Are there any documented or undocumented exceptions that allow this kind of behavior after force-quit? Could this be a bug or a behavior change in recent iOS versions? (I am observing this on iOS 18.3, 18.4, and 18.5) Any insights, experiences, or clarifications from Apple engineers or fellow developers would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

SMAppService Error 108 "Unable to read plist" on macOS 15 Sequoia - Comprehensive Test Case Summary We have a fully notarized SMAppService implementation that consistently fails with Error 108 "Unable to read plist" on macOS 15 Sequoia, despite meeting all documented requirements. After systematic testing including AI-assisted analysis, we've eliminated all common causes and created a comprehensive test case. Error: SMAppServiceErrorDomain Code=108 "Unable to read plist: com.keypath.helperpoc.helper" 📋 Complete Repository: https://github.com/malpern/privileged_helper_help What We've Systematically Verified ✅ Perfect bundle structure: Helper at Contents/MacOS/, plist at Contents/Library/LaunchDaemons/ Correct SMAuthorizedClients: Embedded in helper binary via CREATE_INFOPLIST_SECTION_IN_BINARY=YES Aligned identifiers: Main app, helper, and plist all use consistent naming Production signing: Developer ID certificates with full Apple notarization and stapling BundleProgram paths: Tested both Contents/MacOS/helperpoc-helper and simplified helperpoc-helper Entitlements: Tested with and without com.apple.developer.service-management.managed-by-main-app What Makes This Different Systematic methodology: Not a "help me debug" post - we've done comprehensive testing Expert validation: AI analysis helped eliminate logical hypotheses Reproduction case: Minimal project that demonstrates the issue consistently Complete documentation: All testing steps, configurations, and results documented Use Case Context We're building a keyboard remapper that integrates with https://github.com/jtroo/kanata and needs privileged daemon registration for system-wide keyboard event interception. Key Questions Does anyone have a working SMAppService implementation on macOS 15 Sequoia? Are there undocumented macOS 15 requirements we're missing? Is Error 108 a known issue with specific workarounds? Our hypothesis: This appears to be a macOS 15 system-level issue rather than configuration error, since our implementation meets all documented Apple requirements but fails consistently. Has anyone encountered similar SMAppService issues on macOS 15, or can confirm a working implementation?

My app uses SMAppService to register a privileged helper, the helper registers without errors, and can be seen in System Settings. I can get a connection to the service and a remote object proxy, but the helper process cannot be found in Activity Monitor and the calls to the proxy functions seem to always fail without showing any specific errors. What could be causing this situation?