永远不要使用命名互斥来实现单实例应用程序(至少在生产代码中不要这样做)。恶意代码可以很容易地DoS(拒绝服务)你的屁股…

这么简单的问题有这么多答案。稍微改变一下这里是我对这个问题的解决方案。

Creating a Mutex can be troublesome because the JIT-er only sees you using it for a small portion of your code and wants to mark it as ready for garbage collection. It pretty much wants to out-smart you thinking you are not going to be using that Mutex for that long. In reality you want to hang onto this Mutex for as long as your application is running. The best way to tell the garbage collector to leave you Mutex alone is to tell it to keep it alive though out the different generations of garage collection. Example:

var m = new Mutex(...);
...
GC.KeepAlive(m);

我从这个网页上获得了灵感:http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc/SingleInstance.html

基于命名互斥的方法不是跨平台的，因为命名互斥在Mono中不是全局的。基于进程枚举的方法没有任何同步，可能会导致不正确的行为(例如，同时启动的多个进程可能都根据时间自行终止)。在控制台应用程序中不需要基于windows系统的方法。这个解决方案建立在Divin的答案之上，解决了所有这些问题:

using System;
using System.IO;

namespace TestCs
{
    public class Program
    {
        // The app id must be unique. Generate a new guid for your application. 
        public static string AppId = "01234567-89ab-cdef-0123-456789abcdef";

        // The stream is stored globally to ensure that it won't be disposed before the application terminates.
        public static FileStream UniqueInstanceStream;

        public static int Main(string[] args)
        {
            EnsureUniqueInstance();

            // Your code here.

            return 0;
        }

        private static void EnsureUniqueInstance()
        {
            // Note: If you want the check to be per-user, use Environment.SpecialFolder.ApplicationData instead.
            string lockDir = Path.Combine(
                Environment.GetFolderPath(Environment.SpecialFolder.CommonApplicationData),
                "UniqueInstanceApps");
            string lockPath = Path.Combine(lockDir, $"{AppId}.unique");

            Directory.CreateDirectory(lockDir);

            try
            {
                // Create the file with exclusive write access. If this fails, then another process is executing.
                UniqueInstanceStream = File.Open(lockPath, FileMode.Create, FileAccess.Write, FileShare.None);

                // Although only the line above should be sufficient, when debugging with a vshost on Visual Studio
                // (that acts as a proxy), the IO exception isn't passed to the application before a Write is executed.
                UniqueInstanceStream.Write(new byte[] { 0 }, 0, 1);
                UniqueInstanceStream.Flush();
            }
            catch
            {
                throw new Exception("Another instance of the application is already running.");
            }
        }
    }
}

一个新的使用互斥和IPC的东西，也传递任何命令行参数到运行的实例，是WPF单实例应用程序。

一个节省时间的c# Winforms解决方案…

Program.cs:

using System;
using System.Windows.Forms;
// needs reference to Microsoft.VisualBasic
using Microsoft.VisualBasic.ApplicationServices;  

namespace YourNamespace
{
    public class SingleInstanceController : WindowsFormsApplicationBase
    {
        public SingleInstanceController()
        {
            this.IsSingleInstance = true;
        }

        protected override void OnStartupNextInstance(StartupNextInstanceEventArgs e)
        {
            e.BringToForeground = true;
            base.OnStartupNextInstance(e);
        }

        protected override void OnCreateMainForm()
        {
            this.MainForm = new Form1();
        }
    }

    static class Program
    {
        [STAThread]
        static void Main()
        {
            Application.EnableVisualStyles();
            Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
            string[] args = Environment.GetCommandLineArgs();
            SingleInstanceController controller = new SingleInstanceController();
            controller.Run(args);
        }
    }
}

Just some thoughts: There are cases when requiring that only one instance of an application is not "lame" as some would have you believe. Database apps, etc. are an order of magnitude more difficult if one allows multiple instances of the app for a single user to access a database (you know, all that updating all the records that are open in multiple instances of the app on the users machine, etc.). First, for the "name collision thing, don't use a human readable name - use a GUID instead or, even better a GUID + the human readable name. Chances of name collision just dropped off the radar and the Mutex doesn't care. As someone pointed out, a DOS attack would suck, but if the malicious person has gone to the trouble of getting the mutex name and incorporating it into their app, you are pretty much a target anyway and will have to do MUCH more to protect yourself than just fiddle a mutex name. Also, if one uses the variant of: new Mutex(true, "some GUID plus Name", out AIsFirstInstance), you already have your indicator as to whether or not the Mutex is the first instance.