I can't understand why address instability is a problem: if a Mutex is moved, then it can't be locked (because you need to hold a borrow while locked, which impedes moving), so using addresses is perfectly fine and there is absolutely no need to use IDs.
Also the fact that it doesn't detect locking the same mutex twice makes no sense: a static order obviously detects that and when locking multiple mutexes at the same level all you need to do is check for equal consecutive addresses after sorting, which is trivial.
Overall it seems like the authors are weirdly both quite competent and very incompetent. This is typical of LLMs, but it doesn't seem ZlLM-made.
Doesn't multiple lock support then not make it a mutex anymore? I thought that becomes a monitor lock instead? I forget how standardized the terminology is though, there may be leeway in the mutex definition already.
Don't address introduce ambiguous locking order across attempts?
While not obviously problematic, that seems weird enough you would need to validate that it is explicitly safe.
What about mutexes living in shared memory, and each process having a different address mapping?
All bets go out the window with adversarial multi-process shared memory mutexes. The other process may not even be running the same locking code.