Processes & Concurrency

RSS for tag

Discover how the operating system manages multiple applications and processes simultaneously, ensuring smooth multitasking performance.

Concurrency Documentation

Posts under Processes & Concurrency subtopic

Post

Replies

Boosts

Views

Activity

Background Assets Extension and DeviceCheck
Hi, I have some questions regarding the Background Assets Extension and DeviceCheck framework. Goal: Ensure that only users who have purchased the app can access the server's API without any user authentication using for example DeviceCheck framework and within a Background Assets Extension. My app relies on external assets, which I'm loading using the Background Assets Extension. I'm trying to determine if it's possible to obtain a challenge from the server and send a DeviceCheck assertion during this process within the Background Assets Extension. So far, I only receive session-wide authentication challenges—specifically NSURLAuthenticationMethodServerTrust in the Background Assets Extensio. I’ve tested with Basic Auth (NSURLAuthenticationMethodHTTPBasic) just for experimentation, but the delegate func backgroundDownload( _ download: BADownload, didReceive challenge: URLAuthenticationChallenge ) async -> (URLSession.AuthChallengeDisposition, URLCredential?) is never called with that authentication method. It seems task-specific challenges aren't coming through at all. Also, while the DCAppAttestService API appears to be available on macOS, DCAppAttestService.isSupported always returns false (in my testing), which suggests it's not actually supported on macOS. Can anyone confirm if that’s expected behavior?
2
0
229
May ’25
Cleanup LaunchAgents after development
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.
3
0
174
May ’25
Re-enrolling a LaunchDaemon, does it require user auth?
I am building an app that uses the SMAppService to register a LaunchDaemon that is bundled with my .app. I've got a priming flow created which walks the user through approving the service so that it will start on login. However, I need to also be able to upgrade this background service if the user updates the app. To do this, I think I need to call unregisterAndReturnError and then registerAndReturnError. From my testing, this seems to work correctly, but I have a concern. Will the user ever be prompted to re-authorize the LaunchDaemon that I am registering? If so, under what circumstances will that happen, and what does it look like (so that I can guide the user through it)?
5
0
421
May ’25
Memory visibility issue regards to shared data with Dispatch Queue
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); }
3
0
190
May ’25
BGAppRefreshTask Canceled Immediately by dasd in Network Extension
Dear Apple Support Team, My app, io.cylonix.sase, has a BGAppRefreshTask (io.cylonix.sase.ios.refresh) that is canceled by dasd ~9ms after submission from a Network Extension. Please help identify the cause and suggest a solution. App Details: App ID: io.cylonix.sase iOS Version: 17.1.1 (iPhone Xs Max) Network Extension: saseWgNetworkExtension with packet-tunnel-provider entitlement Use Case: VPN app; Network Extension records file receipts in shared group UserDefaults and schedules BGAppRefreshTask to wake the main app. App Usage: High (frequently used) System State: Sufficient resources (not low on battery or memory) Issue: The task is submitted but canceled immediately with priority 10. It has never run, so rate-limiting is not an issue. ` debug 22:09:37.952749-0700 dasd Best binding found for evaluator 0x16d541720: &lt;private&gt; debug 22:09:37.954483-0700 dasd Invoking selector backgroundTaskSchedulerPermittedIdentifiersWithContext:tableID:unitID:unitBytes: on &lt;LSApplicationRecord 0x724844650&gt; default 22:09:37.955563-0700 dasd CANCELED: bgRefresh-io.cylonix.sase.ios.refresh:ABDAFA at priority 10 &lt;private&gt;!
6
0
222
May ’25
How to force cancel a task that doesn't need cleanup and doesn't check for cancellation?
How can you force cancel a task that doesn't need cleanup and doesn't check for cancellation? If this cannot be done, would this be a useful addition to Swift? Here is the situation: The async method doesn't check for cancellation since it is not doing anything repetively (for example in a loop). For example, the method may be doing "try JSONDecoder().decode(Dictionary<String, ...>.self, from: data)" where data is a large amount. The method doesn't need cleanup. I would like the force cancellation to throw an error. I am already handling errors for the async method. My intended situation if that the user request the async method to get some JSON encoded data, but since it is taking longer that they are willing to wait, they would tap a cancellation button that the app provides.
1
0
129
May ’25
Background Assets Extension and DeviceCheck
Hi, I have some questions regarding the Background Assets Extension and DeviceCheck framework. Goal: Ensure that only users who have purchased the app can access the server's API without any user authentication using for example DeviceCheck framework and within a Background Assets Extension. My app relies on external assets, which I'm loading using the Background Assets Extension. I'm trying to determine if it's possible to obtain a challenge from the server and send a DeviceCheck assertion during this process within the Background Assets Extension. So far, I only receive session-wide authentication challenges—specifically NSURLAuthenticationMethodServerTrust in the Background Assets Extensio. I’ve tested with Basic Auth (NSURLAuthenticationMethodHTTPBasic) just for experimentation, but the delegate func backgroundDownload( _ download: BADownload, didReceive challenge: URLAuthenticationChallenge ) async -> (URLSession.AuthChallengeDisposition, URLCredential?) is never called with that authentication method. It seems task-specific challenges aren't coming through at all. Also, while the DCAppAttestService API appears to be available on macOS, DCAppAttestService.isSupported always returns false (in my testing), which suggests it's not actually supported on macOS. Can anyone confirm if that’s expected behavior?
Replies
2
Boosts
0
Views
229
Activity
May ’25
Cleanup LaunchAgents after development
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.
Replies
3
Boosts
0
Views
174
Activity
May ’25
Re-enrolling a LaunchDaemon, does it require user auth?
I am building an app that uses the SMAppService to register a LaunchDaemon that is bundled with my .app. I've got a priming flow created which walks the user through approving the service so that it will start on login. However, I need to also be able to upgrade this background service if the user updates the app. To do this, I think I need to call unregisterAndReturnError and then registerAndReturnError. From my testing, this seems to work correctly, but I have a concern. Will the user ever be prompted to re-authorize the LaunchDaemon that I am registering? If so, under what circumstances will that happen, and what does it look like (so that I can guide the user through it)?
Replies
5
Boosts
0
Views
421
Activity
May ’25
Memory visibility issue regards to shared data with Dispatch Queue
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); }
Replies
3
Boosts
0
Views
190
Activity
May ’25
BGAppRefreshTask Canceled Immediately by dasd in Network Extension
Dear Apple Support Team, My app, io.cylonix.sase, has a BGAppRefreshTask (io.cylonix.sase.ios.refresh) that is canceled by dasd ~9ms after submission from a Network Extension. Please help identify the cause and suggest a solution. App Details: App ID: io.cylonix.sase iOS Version: 17.1.1 (iPhone Xs Max) Network Extension: saseWgNetworkExtension with packet-tunnel-provider entitlement Use Case: VPN app; Network Extension records file receipts in shared group UserDefaults and schedules BGAppRefreshTask to wake the main app. App Usage: High (frequently used) System State: Sufficient resources (not low on battery or memory) Issue: The task is submitted but canceled immediately with priority 10. It has never run, so rate-limiting is not an issue. ` debug 22:09:37.952749-0700 dasd Best binding found for evaluator 0x16d541720: &lt;private&gt; debug 22:09:37.954483-0700 dasd Invoking selector backgroundTaskSchedulerPermittedIdentifiersWithContext:tableID:unitID:unitBytes: on &lt;LSApplicationRecord 0x724844650&gt; default 22:09:37.955563-0700 dasd CANCELED: bgRefresh-io.cylonix.sase.ios.refresh:ABDAFA at priority 10 &lt;private&gt;!
Replies
6
Boosts
0
Views
222
Activity
May ’25
How to force cancel a task that doesn't need cleanup and doesn't check for cancellation?
How can you force cancel a task that doesn't need cleanup and doesn't check for cancellation? If this cannot be done, would this be a useful addition to Swift? Here is the situation: The async method doesn't check for cancellation since it is not doing anything repetively (for example in a loop). For example, the method may be doing "try JSONDecoder().decode(Dictionary<String, ...>.self, from: data)" where data is a large amount. The method doesn't need cleanup. I would like the force cancellation to throw an error. I am already handling errors for the async method. My intended situation if that the user request the async method to get some JSON encoded data, but since it is taking longer that they are willing to wait, they would tap a cancellation button that the app provides.
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
129
Activity
May ’25