I have declared a variable as
const char* mode;
I want to get the value of mode from user. When I used
scanf("%s",mode)
I get a segmentation fault. Any suggestions?
You should have gotten a warning on the scanf call.
By declaring
const char* mode;
you make mode a pointer to const char, which means you can't modify the data that mode points to.
Then you call:
scanf("%s",mode);
which attempts to modify the data that mode points to.
gcc warns about this:
warning: writing into constant object (argument 2) [-Wformat]
So mode needs to be a pointer to non-const char. And, as others have mentioned, it needs to point to some actual data so that scanf can modify that data. That's probably what's causing your segmentation fault, but since you haven't shown us how mode is initialized, it's difficult to tell.
mode will normally point to the first character of an array. So how big does that array have to be? Since you're using scanf with a "%s" format, it can't possibly be big enough. scanf("%s", mode) reads a whitespace-delimited string from stdin into the buffer pointed to by mode. You can't avoid input that will overflow the buffer.
(If this is a beginner's exercise, you can probably ignore the buffer overflow issue for now; just make mode point to a buffer that's reasonably big, and avoid providing very long input.)
You need to allocate memory to the pointer to be able to do something meaningful with it. Declare it as:
#define MAX_LENGTH 256
char *mode = malloc(MAX_LENGTH);
Also, it is better to have stack allocation, if the memory needed is not too big:
simply,
char mode[MAX_LENGTH];
A segmentation fault is generally an attempt to access memory that the CPU cannot physically address. That is because u have not allocated memory for your variable. Note:But some c compiler like Turbo C++ allows you to do so without even allocating memory.
Related
This question already has answers here:
segmentation fault using scanf [duplicate]
(2 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm trying to input a word in the form of a char * in C
Such as :
char *inputText;
scanf("%s",inputText);
printf("This is your string %s",inputText);
I have tried with using
scanf("%s",&inputText);
As well
Each time I either get a compile error or Segmentation fault when I run it
"format '%s' expects type 'char *' but argument 2 has type 'char **'
I'm not sure if I'm missing something really simple but It's quite confusing.
My code depends on using char *
If theres a way to convert an easier input method into char * then can you show me that method?
You haven't initialized inputText so it's pointing to some random memory which you probably don't even own. Asking scanf write to that memory location results in undefined behavior.
You need to allocate memory for the pointer to point to:
char *inputText = malloc(amount_of_bytes_to_allocate);
Now inputText points to the allocated memory, and scanf can happily write to that memory location without a segfault. Remember that you must free(inputText) when you're done using the allocated memory.
But preferably, you wouldn't use dynamic memory (malloc) in this case since you can do just fine with automatic memory: just declare inputText as an array instead of a pointer:
char inputText[size_of_array];
Remember that your size_of_array (or amount_of_bytes_to_allocate) must be large enough to hold the entire string that scanf is going to write into the array, including the terminating null character. Otherwise you'll have undefined behavior again.
First, as a general precaution, it's a good idea to initialize new pointers to NULL so as to ensure they aren't pointing to memory that your program isn't allowed to access.
I would use getline() as an alternative to scanf() especially if the size of your input can vary. It allocates a properly-sized buffer for you, so you don't need to worry about entering too many characters.
char *inputText = NULL;
int inputSize;
if (getline(&inputText, &inputSize, stdin) >= 0)
printf("This is your string: %s\n", inputText);
else
printf("Error\n");
You still need to free the memory allocated to inputText yourself, so don't forget to do that and set it to NULL once you're done with it.
I am trying to debug a piece of code written by someone else that results in a segfault sometimes, but not all the time, during a memcpy operation.
Also, I would dearly appreciate it if anyone could give me a hand in translating what's going on in a piece of code that occurs before the memcpy.
First off, we have a function into which is being passed a void pointer and a pointer to a struct, like so:
void ExampleFunction(void *dest, StuffStruct *buf)
The struct looks something like this:
typedef struct {
char *stuff;
unsigned int totalStuff;
unsigned int stuffSize;
unsigned int validStuff;
} StuffStruct;
Back to ExampleFunction. Inside ExampleFunction, this is happening:
void *src;
int numStuff;
numStuff = buf->validStuff;
src = (void *)(buf->stuff);
I'm confused by the above line. What happens exactly when the char array in buf->stuff gets cast to a void pointer, then set as the value of src? I can't follow what is supposed to happen with that step.
Right after this, the memcpy happens:
memcpy(dest, src, buf->bufSize*numStuff)
And that's where the segfault often happens. I've checked for dest/src being null, neither are ever null.
Additionally, in the function that calls ExampleFunction, the array for dest is declared with a size of 5000, if that matters. However, when I printf the value in buf->bufSize*numStuff in the above code, the value is often high above 5000 -- it can go up as high as 80,000 -- WITHOUT segfaulting, though. That is, it runs fine with the length variable (buf->bufSize*numStuff) being much higher than the supposed length that the dest variable was initialized with. However, maybe that doesn't matter since it was cast to a void pointer?
For various reasons I'm unable to use dbg or install an IDE. I'm just using basic printf debugging. Does anyone have any ideas I could explore? Thank you in advance.
First of all, the cast and assignment just copies the address of buf->stuff into the pointer src. There is no magic there.
numStuff = buf->validStuff;
src = (void *)(buf->stuff);
If dest has only enough storage for 5000 bytes, and you are trying to write beyond that length, then you are corrupting your program stack, which can lead to a segfault either on the copy or sometimes a little later. Whether you cast to a void pointer or not makes no difference at all.
memcpy(dest, src, buf->bufSize*numStuff)
I think you need figure out exactly what buf->bufSize*numStuff is supposed to be computing, and either fix it if it is incorrect (not intended), truncate the copy to the size of the destination, or increase the size of the destination array.
A null-pointer dereference is not the only thing that can cause a segfault. When your program allocates memory, it is also possible to trigger a segfault when you attempt to access memory that is after the regions of memory that you have allocated.
Your code looks like it intends to copy the contents of a buffer pointed to by buf->stuff to a destination buffer. If either of those buffers are smaller than the size of the memcpy operation, the memcpy can be overrunning the bounds of allocated memory and triggering a segfault.
Because the memory allocator allocates memory in large chunks, and then divvies it up to various calls to malloc, your code won't consistently fail every time you run past the end of a malloc'ed buffer. You will get exactly the sporadic failure behavior you described.
The assumption that is baked into this code is that both the buffer pointed to by buf->stuff and by the dest pointer are at least "buf->bufSize * numStuff" bytes in length. One of those two assumptions is false.
I would suggest a couple of approaches:
check the code that allocates both the buffer pointed to by dest, and the buffer pointed to by buf->stuff, and ensure that they are always to be as big or larger than buf->bufSize * numStuff.
Failing that, there are a bunch of tools that can help you get better diagnostic information from your program. The simplest to use is efence ("Electric Fence") that will help identify places in your code where you overrun any of your buffers. (http://linux.die.net/man/3/efence). A more thorough analysis can be done using valgrind (http://valgrind.org/) -- but Valgrind is a bit more involved to use.
Good luck!
PS. There's nothing special about casting a char* pointer to a void* pointer -- it's still just an address to an allocated block of memory.
I'm trying to write a simple C program on Ubuntu using Eclipse CDT (yes, I'm more comfortable with an IDE and I'm used to Eclipse from Java development), and I'm stuck with something weird. On one part of my code, I initialize a char array in a function, and it is by default pointing to the same location with one of the inputs, which has nothing to do with that char array. Here is my code:
char* subdir(const char input[], const char dir[]){
[*] int totallen = strlen(input) + strlen(dir) + 2;
char retval[totallen];
strcpy(retval, input);
strcat(retval, dir);
...}
Ok at the part I've marked with [*], there is a checkpoint. Even at that breakpoint, when I check y locals, I see that retval is pointing to the same address with my argument input. It not even possible as input comes from another function and retval is created in this function. Is is me being unexperienced with C and missing something, or is there a bug somewhere with the C compiler?
It seems so obvious to me that they should't point to the same (and a valid, of course, they aren't NULL) location. When the code goes on, it literally messes up everything; I get random characters and shapes in console and the program crashes.
I don't think it makes sense to check the address of retval BEFORE it appears, it being a VLA and all (by definition the compiler and the debugger don't know much about it, it's generated at runtime on the stack).
Try checking its address after its point of definition.
EDIT
I just read the "I get random characters and shapes in console". It's obvious now that you are returning the VLA and expecting things to work.
A VLA is only valid inside the block where it was defined. Using it outside is undefined behavior and thus very dangerous. Even if the size were constant, it still wouldn't be valid to return it from the function. In this case you most definitely want to malloc the memory.
What cnicutar said.
I hate people who do this, so I hate me ... but ... Arrays of non-const size are a C99 extension and not supported by C++. Of course GCC has extensions to make it happen.
Under the covers you are essentially doing an _alloca, so your odds of blowing out the stack are proportional to who has access to abuse the function.
Finally, I hope it doesn't actually get returned, because that would be returning a pointer to a stack allocated array, which would be your real problem since that array is gone as of the point of return.
In C++ you would typically use a string class.
In C you would either pass a pointer and length in as parameters, or a pointer to a pointer (or return a pointer) and specify the calls should call free() on it when done. These solutions all suck because they are error prone to leaks or truncation or overflow. :/
Well, your fundamental problem is that you are returning a pointer to the stack allocated VLA. You can't do that. Pointers to local variables are only valid inside the scope of the function that declares them. Your code results in Undefined Behaviour.
At least I am assuming that somewhere in the ..... in the real code is the line return retval.
You'll need to use heap allocation, or pass a suitably sized buffer to the function.
As well as that, you only need +1 rather than +2 in the length calculation - there is only one null-terminator.
Try changing retval to a character pointer and allocating your buffer using malloc().
Pass the two string arguments as, char * or const char *
Rather than returning char *, you should just pass another parameter with a string pointer that you already malloc'd space for.
Return bool or int describing what happened in the function, and use the parameter you passed to store the result.
Lastly don't forget to free the memory since you're having to malloc space for the string on the heap...
//retstr is not a const like the other two
bool subdir(const char *input, const char *dir,char *retstr){
strcpy(retstr, input);
strcat(retstr, dir);
return 1;
}
int main()
{
char h[]="Hello ";
char w[]="World!";
char *greet=(char*)malloc(strlen(h)+strlen(w)+1); //Size of the result plus room for the terminator!
subdir(h,w,greet);
printf("%s",greet);
return 1;
}
This will print: "Hello World!" added together by your function.
Also when you're creating a string on the fly you must malloc. The compiler doesn't know how long the two other strings are going to be, thus using char greet[totallen]; shouldn't work.
I have a global structure:
struct thread_data{
char *incall[10];
int syscall arg_no;
int client_socket;
};
and in main()
char buffer[256];
char *incall[10];
struct thread_data arg_to_thread;
strcpy(incall[0],buffer); /*works fine*/
strcpy(arg_to_thread.incall[0],buffer); /*causes segmentation fault*/
Why does this happen and Please suggest a way out.
thanks
A segfault means that something is wrong. But no segfault does not mean that something isn't wrong. If two situations are basically the same, and one segfaults and the other does not, it usually means that they are both wrong, but only one of them happens to be triggering the segfault.
Looking at the line char* incall[10], what that means is you have an array of 10 pointers to a char. By default, these pointers will be pointing at random places. Therefore, strcpying into incall[0] will be copying the string to a random location. This is most likely going to segfault! You need to initialise incall[0] first (using malloc).
So a bigger question is why doesn't the first line segfault? I would imagine the reason is that it just so happens that whatever was in memory before was a valid pointer. Therefore, the strcpy doesn't segfault, it just overwrites something else which will later cause completely unexpected behaviour. So you must fix both lines of code.
Another issue (once you have fixed that) is that strcpy itself is highly dangerous -- since it copies strings until it finds a 0 byte and then stops, you can never be sure exactly how much it's going to copy (unless you use strlen to allocate the destination memory). So you should use strncpy instead, to limit the number of bytes copied to the size of the buffer.
You've not initialized the pointer incall[0], so goodness only knows where the first strcpy() writes to. You are unlucky that your program does not crash immediately.
You've not initialized the pointer arg_to_thread.incall[0], so goodness only knows where the second strcpy() writes to. You are lucky that your program crashes now, rather than later.
In neither case is it the compiler's fault; you must always ensure you initialize your pointers.
Make sure you have enough memory allocated for your string buffers.
Stay away from strcpy. Use strncpy instead. strcpy is a notorious source of buffer overflow vulnerabilities - a security and maintenance nightmare for which there really isn't an excuse.
I have been trying to look for a reason why the following code is failing, and I couldn't find one.
So please, excuse my ignorance and let me know what's happening here.
#include<stdio.h>
int main(void){
char* p="Hi, this is not going to work";
scanf("%s",p);
return 0;
}
As far as I understood, I created a pointer p to a contiguous area in the memory of the size 29 + 1(for the \0).
Why can't I use scanf to change the contents of that?
P.S Please correct me If I said something wrong about char*.
char* p="Hi, this is not going to work";
this does not allocate memory for you to write
this creates a String Literal which results inUndefined Behaviour every time you try to change its contents.
to use p as a buffer for your scanf do something like
char * p = malloc(sizeof(char) * 128); // 128 is an Example
OR
you could as well do:
char p[]="Hi, this is not going to work";
Which I guess is what you really wanted to do.
Keep in mind that this can still end up being UB because scanf() does not check whether the place you are using is indeed valid writable memory.
remember :
char * p is a String Literal and should not be modified
char p[] = "..." allocates enough memory to hold the String inside the "..." and may be changed (its contents I mean).
Edit :
A nice trick to avoid UB is
char * p = malloc(sizeof(char) * 128);
scanf("%126s",s);
p points to a constant literal, which may in fact reside in a read-only memory area (implementation dependent). At any rate, trying to overwrite that is undefined behaviour. I.e. it might result in nothing, or an immediate crash, or a hidden memory corruption which causes mysterious problems much later. Don't ever do that.
It is crashing because memory has not been allocated for p. Allocate memory for p and it should be ok. What you have is a constant memory area pointing to by p. When you attempt to write something in this data segment, the runtime environment will raise a trap which will lead to a crash.
Hope this answers your question
scanf() parses data entered from stdin (normally, the keyboard). I think you want sscanf().
However, the purpose of scanf() is to part a string with predefined escape sequences, which your test string doesn't have. So that makes it a little unclear exactly what you are trying to do.
Note that sscanf() takes an additional argument as the first argument, which specifies the string being parsed.