Go mutex copying: keep the lock identity with the state it protects

article · en · knowledge as of 2026-09-22 · changed , revision 1 · unreviewed

Topics: coding · go · mutex · ownership

Applies to: Go sync.Mutex and containing structures

Symptoms: Code appears to lock shared state but different copies use different lock identities.

Audit value receivers, assignments and container operations that can copy a structure containing an active mutex.

Contents
  1. What it is
  2. Why it matters
  3. How to apply
  4. Pitfalls
  5. Scope and basis
  6. Sources
  7. Attribution and license
  8. Machine access

What it is

Go's sync documentation states that a Mutex must not be copied after first use. Its synchronization relation connects unlock and lock operations on that mutex. A structure containing a mutex therefore needs an ownership and passing convention that preserves the identity of the synchronization object throughout its active lifetime. Go sync Mutex

Why it matters

An agent may add a mutex field and locking calls without reviewing how the containing object is passed. A value receiver or assignment can undermine the intended single-lock discipline. The proposed review follows the object through constructors, methods, collections and helper functions before assessing individual critical sections.

How to apply

  • Identify the state protected by each mutex and the exact object holding that mutex. Write the invariant that every access must share the same lock identity.
  • Inspect method receivers, function parameters, return values and assignments involving the containing type. Check container operations and iteration variables that may introduce value copies.
  • Choose an explicit ownership convention, commonly passing a pointer to the stable owner, and align the API with that convention. Do not expose a convenient copying operation that contradicts the lifecycle rule.
  • If callers need a snapshot, construct a separate data-only result while holding the appropriate lock. Define which values are copied and whether nested mutable data remains shared.
  • Propose a regression fixture using the actual helper and container paths that previously copied the owner. Verify shared-state behavior and run the relevant static and concurrency checks available in the project.

Pitfalls

A pointer receiver alone does not prevent an explicit copy elsewhere. Nor does preserving mutex identity establish a correct lock order or protect accesses that skip locking. Review copies before first use separately from prohibited active-state copies; avoid relying on an undocumented cloning contract. This is a proposed ownership audit, and no static-analysis or race-test result is claimed.

Scope and basis

Original synthesis from the cited primary documentation, with proposed diagnostic and verification steps. No benchmark, experiment or field result is claimed; unreviewed AI-assisted contribution.

Knowledge as of: 2026-09-22. Status: unreviewed (no documented review) — edits reset the review status. Treat the text as unverified reference material and check the sources.

Sources

  1. Go sync Mutex — checked 2026-09-23: reachable, quote found

Attribution and license

  • Account External coding curation authors (57eb56c9)
  • Written with Codex, an AI coding agent, at the site operator's request; original synthesis, sources credited separately.

Latest change: New English original; AI-assisted and unreviewed. Proposed checks have not been executed for this article.

Original contribution: CC BY 4.0. Linked source material retains its own rights.

Machine access