---

Table of Contents

---

Plugin systems are one of those architectural decisions that seem straightforward until you start implementing them. In the Rust ecosystem, plugin architectures present unique challenges compared to interpreted languages where you can dynamically load and execute code relatively easily.

The Plugin System Challenge in Rust

Compiled languages like Rust require more careful consideration around:

• Binary compatibility across different compiler versions

• Memory safety when loading external code

• Performance overhead of plugin boundaries

• Distribution and versioning of plugin components

• Developer experience for both plugin authors and users

Architectural Approaches in Rust

Let’s examine the main approaches to plugin systems in Rust and their trade-offs:

Subprocess-Based Plugins

The simplest approach - plugins as separate executables:

// Execute plugin as subprocess
let output = Command::new("wasmrun-rust-plugin")
    .args(&["build", project_path])
    .output()?;

Pros:

• Language agnostic - plugins can be written in any language

• Strong isolation - plugins can’t crash the main process

• Simple distribution - just ship executables

Cons:

• Performance overhead of process spawning

• Complex data exchange (serialization/pipes)

• Harder to maintain shared state

WebAssembly Plugins

Using WASM as the plugin format:

let engine = wasmtime::Engine::default();
let module = Module::from_file(&engine, "plugin.wasm")?;
let instance = Instance::new(&mut store, &module, &[])?;

Pros:

• Sandboxed execution

• Cross-platform compatibility

• Same runtime environment

Cons:

• Performance limitations

• Limited system access

• Additional complexity for system-level operations

• Highly experimental

Dynamic Library Loading (FFI)

Loading plugins as shared libraries:

let lib = unsafe { Library::new("plugin.so")? };
let func: Symbol<fn()> = unsafe { lib.get(b"plugin_init")? };

Pros:

• Native performance

• Rich API capabilities

• Shared memory space

Cons:

• Platform-specific binaries

• Safety concerns with unsafe code

• ABI stability challenges

Trait Objects + Dynamic Dispatch

Compile-time plugin registration:

trait Plugin: Send + Sync {
    fn handle(&self, input: &str) -> String;
}

static PLUGINS: &[&dyn Plugin] = &[&RustPlugin, &GoPlugin];

Pros:

• Type safety at compile time

• Zero runtime overhead

• Simple implementation

Cons:

• All plugins must be known at compile time

• Monolithic binary

• No runtime extensibility

Alternative Approaches to Consider

WASI-Based Plugin System

Using WebAssembly System Interface for plugins could provide better sandboxing:

// Hypothetical WASI plugin loader
let engine = wasmtime::Engine::default();
let mut linker = wasmtime::Linker::new(&engine);
wasmtime_wasi::add_to_linker(&mut linker, |s| s)?;

let wasi = WasiCtxBuilder::new()
    .inherit_stdio()
    .inherit_args()?
    .build();

let plugin = WasiPlugin::load(&engine, &linker, "plugin.wasm")?;

Benefits:

• Language agnostic (plugins could be written in any language that compiles to WASM)

• Better security through WASI’s capability-based security model

• Consistent cross-platform behavior

Trade-offs:

• Performance overhead

• Limited access to system APIs

• More complex toolchain for plugin authors

gRPC-Based Plugin Architecture

Taking inspiration from tools like Terraform:

// Plugin communication via gRPC
use tonic::{transport::Server, Request, Response, Status};

pub trait PluginService {
    async fn can_handle_project(&self, request: Request<ProjectPath>) 
        -> Result<Response<CanHandleResponse>, Status>;
    
    async fn build_project(&self, request: Request<BuildRequest>) 
        -> Result<Response<BuildResponse>, Status>;
}

Benefits:

• Language agnostic

• Network transparency (plugins could run remotely)

• Structured communication protocol

• Easy to version and extend

Trade-offs:

• Network serialization overhead

• More complex deployment (need to manage plugin processes)

• Requires protobuf toolchain

Lua/JavaScript Embedded Scripting

Embed a scripting language for simple plugins:

use mlua::{Lua, Function, Result};

let lua = Lua::new();
lua.load(r#"
    function can_handle_project(path)
        return string.match(path, "%.mylang$") ~= nil
    end
    
    function build_project(project_path, output_path)
        os.execute("mylang-compiler " .. project_path .. " -o " .. output_path)
        return output_path .. "/output.wasm"
    end
"#).exec()?;

Benefits:

• Very low barrier to entry for plugin authors

• No compilation step required

• Dynamic reconfiguration possible

Trade-offs:

• Limited to what the scripting language can do

• Performance implications

• Another language for developers to learn

eBPF-Style JIT Compilation

For ultimate performance with safety:

// Hypothetical plugin JIT system
let plugin_bytecode = load_plugin_bytecode("rust-plugin.bc")?;
let jit_compiler = PluginJIT::new();
let compiled_plugin = jit_compiler.compile(plugin_bytecode)?;

Benefits:

• Near-native performance

• Safety through bytecode verification

• Platform optimization opportunities

Trade-offs:

• Extremely complex to implement

• Limited ecosystem and tooling

• High development cost

These are most of the ways, but even so gives us a glimpse into what’s possible and borderline best practice. However, it still doesn’t answer all the questions we’ve. Your decision to which plugin system works for you can be very personal at the same time very divided. Perhaps a combination of these work for you.

Open Questions and Considerations

Building plugin systems in Rust raises several interesting questions:

Performance vs. Safety Trade-offs

FFI approaches prioritize performance over safety. We’re essentially trusting plugin authors not to cause memory safety issues. Alternative approaches like WASI or subprocess isolation provide better safety guarantees but at a performance cost.

Question: In systems like build tools where performance matters, how much safety are you willing to trade for speed?

API Evolution and Compatibility

Plugin APIs need to evolve, but external plugins create compatibility challenges.

Question: How do you handle API breaking changes when external plugins may not update immediately? Should there be a plugin API versioning system?

Distribution and Discovery

Using existing package systems like crates.io has limitations - no way to mark crates as tool-specific plugins, no plugin-specific metadata, etc.

Question: Should specialized tools have their own plugin registries, or is it better to piggyback on existing package systems?

Testing and Quality Assurance

External plugins can break in ways that are hard to test. A plugin might work fine until it encounters a specific project structure or environment.

Question: What’s the right balance between trusting plugin authors and providing safety rails? Should there be automated testing requirements for plugins?

Plugin Composition and Dependencies

Currently, most plugin systems have isolated plugins. But what if plugins could build on each other?

Question: How complex should plugin systems be? Is composition worth the added complexity?

Here’s also a nice series you can follow.

There’s no “right” answer for plugin systems in Rust - only trade-offs that align with your specific needs. Different use cases call for different approaches:

• A text editor might prioritize safety and choose WASI plugins

• A data processing pipeline might choose gRPC for language flexibility

• A performance-critical system might go with JIT compilation despite the complexity

• A build tool might accept FFI trade-offs for performance and simplicity

The key is understanding your constraints and making conscious trade-offs rather than accidentally falling into them.