Are XPCSession and XPCListener incomplete(ly documented)?

I've been experimenting with the new low-level Swift API for XPC (XPCSession and XPCListener). The ability to send and receive Codable messages is an appealing alternative to making an @objc protocol in order to use NSXPCConnection from Swift — I can easily create an enum type whose cases map onto the protocol's methods.

But our current XPC code validates the incoming connection using techniques similar to those described in Quinn's "Apple Recommended" response to the "Validating Signature Of XPC Process" thread. I haven't been able to determine how to do this with XPCListener; neither the documentation nor the Swift interface have yielded any insight.

The Creating XPC Services article suggests using Xcode's XPC Service template, which contains this code:

let listener = try XPCListener(service: serviceName) { request in
    request.accept { message in
        performCalculation(with: message)
    }
}

The apparent intent is to inspect the incoming request and decide whether to accept it or reject it, but there aren't any properties on IncomingSessionRequest that would allow the service to make that decision. Ideally, there would be a way to evaluate a code signing requirement, or at least obtain the audit token of the requesting process.

(I did notice that a function xpc_listener_set_peer_code_signing_requirement was added in macOS 14.4, but it takes an xpc_listener_t argument and I can't tell whether XPCListener is bridged to that type.)

Am I missing something obvious, or is there a gap in the functionality of XPCListener and IncomingSessionRequest?

Am I missing something obvious, or is there a gap in the functionality

The latter. I’d appreciate you filing a bug about this. Please post your bug number, just for the record.

Share and Enjoy

Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple
let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Thanks for your reply. I've submitted FB13715123 in response.

Are XPCSession and XPCListener incomplete(ly documented)?
 
 
Q