Related
I'm new to C and I have a couple questions about fscanf. I wrote a simple program that reads the contents of a file and spits it back out on the command line:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main (int argc, char* argv[1])
{
if (argc != 2)
{
printf("Usage: fscanf txt\n");
return 1;
}
char* txt = argv[1];
FILE* fp = fopen(txt, "r");
if (fp == NULL)
{
printf("Could not open %s.\n", txt);
return 2;
}
char s[50];
while (fscanf(fp, "%49s", s) == 1)
printf("%s\n", s);
return 0;
}
Let's say the contents of my text file is just "C is cool.", which will output:
C
is
cool.
So I have two questions here:
1) Does fscanf assume that the placeholder "%s" will be a single word (an array of chars only)? According to this program's output, spaces and line breaks seem to prompt the function to return. But what if I wanted to read a whole paragraph? Would I use fread() instead?
2) More importantly I'm wondering what happens with all of the unused space in the array. On the first iteration, I think s[0] = "C" and s[1] = "\0", so are s[2] - s[49] just wasted?
EDIT: while (fscanf(fp, "%**49**s", s) == 1) - thanks to #M Oehm for pointing this out - enforcing strong limit here to prevent dangerous buffer overflows
1) Does fscanf assume that the placeholder "%s" will be a single word
(an array of chars only)? According to this program's output, spaces
and line breaks seem to prompt the function to return. But what if I
wanted to read a whole paragraph? Would I use fread() instead?
The %s specifier reads single words that are delimited by white space. The scanf family of functions are very cerude; they do not normally distinguish between line breaks and spaces, for example.
A line is anything up to the next newline. There is no concept of paragraph, but you might consider anything between blank lines a paragraph. The function to read lines of text is fgets, so you could read lines until you find an empty one. (fgets retains the newline at the end, mind.)
fread is a function for reading binary data. It is not useful for reading structured texts. (But it can be used to read the contents of a whole text file at once.)
2) More importantly I'm wondering what happens with all of the unused
space in the array. On the first iteration, I think c[0] = 'C' and
c[1] = '\0', so are c[2] - c[49] just wasted?
You are right, the data after the null ternimator isn't used. "Wasted" is too negative – with user input you don't know whether you encounter a longer word eventually. Because dynamic allocation requires some care in C, allocating "enogh for most cases" is a goopd practice in C. You should enforce the hard limit when reading, though, to prevent buffer overruns:
fscanf(fp, "%49s", s)
The issue of "wasted" memory becomes more serious if you have an array of arrays of 50 chars. Most of the words will be much shorter than 50 chars. Here, the extra memory might eventually hurt you. 48 extra characters for reading a line are okay, though.
(A strategy to save "compact" arrays of chars is to have a running array of chars that is a concatenation of all strings, including their terminators. The word array is then an array of piointers into that master string.)
You use specifier %s which will read and store data in array s until it encounters a space or newline . As soon as it encounters space fscanf returns.
I think c[0] = "C" and c[1] = "\0", so are c[2] - c[49] just wasted?
Yes , s[0]='C' and s[1]='\0' and you probably can't do anything about the size of array being much more.
If you want complete string "C is cool" stored in array use fgets.
#define len 1000
char s[len];
while(fgets(s,len,fp)!=NULL) {
//your code
}
I am working on a c project and I need to remove a file from within a directory. For some reason though it keeps on saying that it can't delete because the file or directory doesn't exist. Below is the code that I am using to remove the file.
void deleteOldestLog()
{
FILE *fp;
char path[FILE_PATH_BUF_LEN], *fileName;
fp = popen("ls -tr /home/myfolder/logs/ |head -1", "r");
if (fp == NULL)
{
printf("Failed to run command");
}
else
{
char removalPath[FILE_PATH_BUF_LEN];
while ((fileName = fgets(path, sizeof(path)-1, fp)) != NULL)
{
sprintf(removalPath, "/home/myfolder/logs/%s", fileName, sizeof(fileName)-1);
printf("Removing file: %s", removalPath);
if (remove(removalPath) != 0)
{
perror("ERROR DELETING LOG");
}
else
{
printf("Successfully deleted %s", removalPath);
}
break;
}
pclose(fp);
}
}
Even though it says that it can't find the file because it doesn't exist I know that this isn't true because if I run ll followed by the path that the c program printed it returns the file that I am trying to delete.
I think it might be because fgets is putting '\0' on the end of the string which is stopping the remove from working.
How can I fix this?
There's a newline at the end of the file name read by fgets(). Your file name doesn't actually end with a newline.
You attempt to remove the newline with:
sprintf(removalPath, "/home/myfolder/%s", fileName, sizeof(fileName)-1);
However, to be effective, you'd need to use strlen() instead of sizeof(), and you'd need to modify the format string:
sprintf(removalPath, "/home/myfolder/%.*s", (int)strlen(fileName)-1, fileName);
The argument for the * must be an int and strlen() returns a size_t; hence the cast. (GCC will warn about that sort of thing if you turn on the warnings; use at least -Wall.)
A tip for you: when in doubt, print the string. I'll typically use a format like this. Note the angle brackets around the string:
printf("Removing: <<%s>>\n", removalPath);
When you see:
Removing: <</home/myfolder/something
>>
you know there's a problem with a newline in the string. Without the markers, you might not notice that there's a newline in the string causing the extra newline in the output.
Why does the format string need to be modified?
Let's look at the original sprintf() again:
sprintf(removalPath, "/home/myfolder/%s", fileName, sizeof(fileName)-1);
The format string expects 1 argument, a string. The call provides two values, a string and a length. So, the first problem is that there is a left-over argument. This usually does no damage, but be aware of it. Presumably, the reason for passing the length minus one was to lose the last character. The formats in the printf() family can be adorned with one or two numbers, and either or both can have a * instead of an integer value. These numbers constrain the lengths of the formatted value. When you write:
%.*s
you state the length of the output shall be exactly the length specified by an int value passed as an argument before the string itself. Hence the revision:
sprintf(removalPath, "/home/myfolder/%.*s", (int)strlen(fileName)-1, fileName);
(which I just fixed while adding this information.)
I've also not added error checking to the output of sprintf() etc. That's not unusual; however, best coding practices do ensure that functions like sprintf() return the value you expect (which is the number of characters written to the string, excluding the trailing null '\0'.
(Aside: in general, it is better to use snprintf() than sprintf(); that can avoid buffer overflows.
snprintf(removalPath, sizeof(removalPath), "/home/myfolder/%.*s",
(int)strlen(fileName)-1, fileName);
However, the behaviour of the *snprintf() functions under MSVC is different from the behaviour mandated by the C Standards (C99, C11). Worse, in the case of vsnprintf_s() and the other _s functions, the argument lists are different between the MSVC and the C Standard.)
I have this snippet of the code:
char* receiveInput(){
char *s;
scanf("%s",s);
return s;
}
int main()
{
char *str = receiveInput();
int length = strlen(str);
printf("Your string is %s, length is %d\n", str, length);
return 0;
}
I receive this output:
Your string is hellàÿ", length is 11
my input was:
helloworld!
can somebody explain why, and why this style of the coding is bad, thanks in advance
Several questions have addressed what you've done wrong and how to fix it, but you also said (emphasis mine):
can somebody explain why, and why this style of the coding is bad
I think scanf is a terrible way to read input. It's inconsistent with printf, makes it easy to forget to check for errors, makes it hard to recover from errors, and is incompatable with ordinary (and easier to do correctly) read operations (like fgets and company).
First, note that the "%s" format will read only until it sees whitespace. Why whitespace? Why does "%s" print out an entire string, but reads in strings in such a limited capacity?
If you'd like to read in an entire line, as you may often be wont to do, scanf provides... with "%[^\n]". What? What is that? When did this become Perl?
But the real problem is that neither of those are safe. They both freely overflow with no bounds checking. Want bounds checking? Okay, you got it: "%10s" (and "%10[^\n]" is starting to look even worse). That will only read 9 characters, and add a terminating nul-character automatically. So that's good... for when our array size never needs to change.
What if we want to pass the size of our array as an argument to scanf? printf can do this:
char string[] = "Hello, world!";
printf("%.*s\n", sizeof string, string); // prints whole message;
printf("%.*s\n", 6, string); // prints just "Hello,"
Want to do the same thing with scanf? Here's how:
static char tmp[/*bit twiddling to get the log10 of SIZE_MAX plus a few*/];
// if we did the math right we shouldn't need to use snprintf
snprintf(tmp, sizeof tmp, "%%%us", bufsize);
scanf(tmp, buffer);
That's right - scanf doesn't support the "%.*s" variable precision printf does, so to do dynamic bounds checking with scanf we have to construct our own format string in a temporary buffer. This is all kinds of bad, and even though it's actually safe here it will look like a really bad idea to anyone just dropping in.
Meanwhile, let's look at another world. Let's look at the world of fgets. Here's how we read in a line of data with fgets:
fgets(buffer, bufsize, stdin);
Infinitely less headache, no wasted processor time converting an integer precision into a string that will only be reparsed by the library back into an integer, and all the relevant elements are sitting there on one line for us to see how they work together.
Granted, this may not read an entire line. It will only read an entire line if the line is shorter than bufsize - 1 characters. Here's how we can read an entire line:
char *readline(FILE *file)
{
size_t size = 80; // start off small
size_t curr = 0;
char *buffer = malloc(size);
while(fgets(buffer + curr, size - curr, file))
{
if(strchr(buffer + curr, '\n')) return buffer; // success
curr = size - 1;
size *= 2;
char *tmp = realloc(buffer, size);
if(tmp == NULL) /* handle error */;
buffer = tmp;
}
/* handle error */;
}
The curr variable is an optimization to prevent us from rechecking data we've already read, and is unnecessary (although useful as we read more data). We could even use the return value of strchr to strip off the ending "\n" character if you preferred.
Notice also that size_t size = 80; as a starting place is completely arbitrary. We could use 81, or 79, or 100, or add it as a user-supplied argument to the function. We could even add an int (*inc)(int) argument, and change size *= 2; to size = inc(size);, allowing the user to control how fast the array grows. These can be useful for efficiency, when reallocations get costly and boatloads of lines of data need to be read and processed.
We could write the same with scanf, but think of how many times we'd have to rewrite the format string. We could limit it to a constant increment, instead of the doubling (easily) implemented above, and never have to adjust the format string; we could give in and just store the number, do the math with as above, and use snprintf to convert it to a format string every time we reallocate so that scanf can convert it back to the same number; we could limit our growth and starting position in such a way that we can manually adjust the format string (say, just increment the digits), but this could get hairy after a while and may require recursion (!) to work cleanly.
Furthermore, it's hard to mix reading with scanf with reading with other functions. Why? Say you want to read an integer from a line, then read a string from the next line. You try this:
int i;
char buf[BUSIZE];
scanf("%i", &i);
fgets(buf, BUFSIZE, stdin);
That will read the "2" but then fgets will read an empty line because scanf didn't read the newline! Okay, take two:
...
scanf("%i\n", &i);
...
You think this eats up the newline, and it does - but it also eats up leading whitespace on the next line, because scanf can't tell the difference between newlines and other forms of whitespace. (Also, turns out you're writing a Python parser, and leading whitespace in lines is important.) To make this work, you have to call getchar or something to read in the newline and throw it away it:
...
scanf("%i", &i);
getchar();
...
Isn't that silly? What happens if you use scanf in a function, but don't call getchar because you don't know whether the next read is going to be scanf or something saner (or whether or not the next character is even going to be a newline)? Suddenly the best way to handle the situation seems to be to pick one or the other: do we use scanf exclusively and never have access to fgets-style full-control input, or do we use fgets exclusively and make it harder to perform complex parsing?
Actually, the answer is we don't. We use fgets (or non-scanf functions) exclusively, and when we need scanf-like functionality, we just call sscanf on the strings! We don't need to have scanf mucking up our filestreams unnecessarily! We can have all the precise control over our input we want and still get all the functionality of scanf formatting. And even if we couldn't, many scanf format options have near-direct corresponding functions in the standard library, like the infinitely more flexible strtol and strtod functions (and friends). Plus, i = strtoumax(str, NULL) for C99 sized integer types is a lot cleaner looking than scanf("%" SCNuMAX, &i);, and a lot safer (we can use that strtoumax line unchanged for smaller types and let the implicit conversion handle the extra bits, but with scanf we have to make a temporary uintmax_t to read into).
The moral of this story: avoid scanf. If you need the formatting it provides, and don't want to (or can't) do it (more efficiently) yourself, use fgets / sscanf.
scanf doesn't allocate memory for you.
You need to allocate memory for the variable passed to scanf.
You could do like this:
char* receiveInput(){
char *s = (char*) malloc( 100 );
scanf("%s",s);
return s;
}
But warning:
the function that calls receiveInput will take the ownership of the returned memory: you'll have to free(str) after you print it in main. (Giving the ownership away in this way is usually not considered a good practice).
An easy fix is getting the allocated memory as a parameter.
if the input string is longer than 99 (in my case) your program will suffer of buffer overflow (which is what it's already happening).
An easy fix is to pass to scanf the length of your buffer:
scanf("%99s",s);
A fixed code could be like this:
// s must be of at least 100 chars!!!
char* receiveInput( char *s ){
scanf("%99s",s);
return s;
}
int main()
{
char str[100];
receiveInput( str );
int length = strlen(str);
printf("Your string is %s, length is %d\n", str, length);
return 0;
}
You have to first allocate memory to your s object in your receiveInput() method. Such as:
s = (char *)calloc(50, sizeof(char));
I have a simple question. I want to write a program in C that scans the lines of a specific file, and if the only phrase on the line is "Atoms", I want it to stop scanning and report which line it was on. This is what I have and is not compiling because apparently I'm comparing an integer to a pointer: (of course "string.h" is included.
char dm;
int test;
test = fscanf(inp,"%s", &dm);
while (test != EOF) {
if (dm=="Amit") {
printf("Found \"Atoms\" on line %d", j);
break;
}
j++;
}
the file was already opened with:
inp = fopen( .. )
And checked to make sure it opens correctly...
I would like to use a different approach though, and was wondering if it could work. Instead of scanning individual strings, could I scan entire lines as such:
// char tt[200];
//
// fgets(tt, 200, inp);
and do something like:
if (tt[] == "Atoms") break;
Thanks!
Amit
Without paying too much attention to your actual code here, the most important mistake your making is that the == operator will NOT compare two strings.
In C, a string is an array of characters, which is simply a pointer. So doing if("abcde" == some_string) will never be true unless they point to the same string!
You want to use a method like "strcmp(char *a, char *b)" which will return 0 if two strings are equal and something else if they're not. "strncmp(char *a, char *b, size_t n)" will compare the first "n" characters in a and b, and return 0 if they're equal, which is good for looking at the beginning of strings (to see if a string starts with a certain set of characters)
You also should NOT be passing a character as the pointer for %s in your fscanf! This will cause it to completely destroy your stack it tries to put many characters into ch, which only has space for a single character! As James says, you want to do something like char ch[BUFSIZE] where BUFSIZE is 1 larger than you ever expect a single line to be, then do "fscanf(inp, "%s", ch);"
Hope that helps!
please be aware that dm is a single char, while you need a char *
more: if (dm=="Amit") is wrong, change it in
if (strcmp(dm, "Amit") == 0)
In the line using fscanf, you are casting a string to the address of a char. Using the %s in fscanf should set the string to a pointer, not an address:
char *dm;
test = fscanf(inp,"%s", dm);
The * symbol declares an indirection, namely, the variable pointed to by dm. The fscanf line will declare dm as a reference to the string captured with the %s delimiter. It will point to the address of the first char in the string.
What kit said is correct too, the strcmp command should be used, not the == compare, as == will just compare the addresses of the strings.
Edit: What kit says below is correct. All pointers should be allocated memory before they are used, or else should be cast to a pre-allocated memory space. You can allocate memory like this:
dm = (char*)malloc(sizeof(char) * STRING_LENGTH);
where STRING_LENGTH is a maximum length of a possible string. This memory allocation only has to be done once.
The problem is you've declared 'dm' as a char, not a malloc'd char* or char[BUFSIZE]
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/cstdio/fscanf/
You'll also probably report incorrect line numbers, you'll need to scan the read-in buffer for '\n' occurences, and handle the case where your desired string lies across buffer boundaries.
I want to know the disadvantages of scanf().
In many sites, I have read that using scanf might cause buffer overflows. What is the reason for this? Are there any other drawbacks with scanf?
Most of the answers so far seem to focus on the string buffer overflow issue. In reality, the format specifiers that can be used with scanf functions support explicit field width setting, which limit the maximum size of the input and prevent buffer overflow. This renders the popular accusations of string-buffer overflow dangers present in scanf virtually baseless. Claiming that scanf is somehow analogous to gets in the respect is completely incorrect. There's a major qualitative difference between scanf and gets: scanf does provide the user with string-buffer-overflow-preventing features, while gets doesn't.
One can argue that these scanf features are difficult to use, since the field width has to be embedded into format string (there's no way to pass it through a variadic argument, as it can be done in printf). That is actually true. scanf is indeed rather poorly designed in that regard. But nevertheless any claims that scanf is somehow hopelessly broken with regard to string-buffer-overflow safety are completely bogus and usually made by lazy programmers.
The real problem with scanf has a completely different nature, even though it is also about overflow. When scanf function is used for converting decimal representations of numbers into values of arithmetic types, it provides no protection from arithmetic overflow. If overflow happens, scanf produces undefined behavior. For this reason, the only proper way to perform the conversion in C standard library is functions from strto... family.
So, to summarize the above, the problem with scanf is that it is difficult (albeit possible) to use properly and safely with string buffers. And it is impossible to use safely for arithmetic input. The latter is the real problem. The former is just an inconvenience.
P.S. The above in intended to be about the entire family of scanf functions (including also fscanf and sscanf). With scanf specifically, the obvious issue is that the very idea of using a strictly-formatted function for reading potentially interactive input is rather questionable.
The problems with scanf are (at a minimum):
using %s to get a string from the user, which leads to the possibility that the string may be longer than your buffer, causing overflow.
the possibility of a failed scan leaving your file pointer in an indeterminate location.
I very much prefer using fgets to read whole lines in so that you can limit the amount of data read. If you've got a 1K buffer, and you read a line into it with fgets you can tell if the line was too long by the fact there's no terminating newline character (last line of a file without a newline notwithstanding).
Then you can complain to the user, or allocate more space for the rest of the line (continuously if necessary until you have enough space). In either case, there's no risk of buffer overflow.
Once you've read the line in, you know that you're positioned at the next line so there's no problem there. You can then sscanf your string to your heart's content without having to save and restore the file pointer for re-reading.
Here's a snippet of code which I frequently use to ensure no buffer overflow when asking the user for information.
It could be easily adjusted to use a file other than standard input if necessary and you could also have it allocate its own buffer (and keep increasing it until it's big enough) before giving that back to the caller (although the caller would then be responsible for freeing it, of course).
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define OK 0
#define NO_INPUT 1
#define TOO_LONG 2
#define SMALL_BUFF 3
static int getLine (char *prmpt, char *buff, size_t sz) {
int ch, extra;
// Size zero or one cannot store enough, so don't even
// try - we need space for at least newline and terminator.
if (sz < 2)
return SMALL_BUFF;
// Output prompt.
if (prmpt != NULL) {
printf ("%s", prmpt);
fflush (stdout);
}
// Get line with buffer overrun protection.
if (fgets (buff, sz, stdin) == NULL)
return NO_INPUT;
// Catch possibility of `\0` in the input stream.
size_t len = strlen(buff);
if (len < 1)
return NO_INPUT;
// If it was too long, there'll be no newline. In that case, we flush
// to end of line so that excess doesn't affect the next call.
if (buff[len - 1] != '\n') {
extra = 0;
while (((ch = getchar()) != '\n') && (ch != EOF))
extra = 1;
return (extra == 1) ? TOO_LONG : OK;
}
// Otherwise remove newline and give string back to caller.
buff[len - 1] = '\0';
return OK;
}
And, a test driver for it:
// Test program for getLine().
int main (void) {
int rc;
char buff[10];
rc = getLine ("Enter string> ", buff, sizeof(buff));
if (rc == NO_INPUT) {
// Extra NL since my system doesn't output that on EOF.
printf ("\nNo input\n");
return 1;
}
if (rc == TOO_LONG) {
printf ("Input too long [%s]\n", buff);
return 1;
}
printf ("OK [%s]\n", buff);
return 0;
}
Finally, a test run to show it in action:
$ printf "\0" | ./tstprg # Singular NUL in input stream.
Enter string>
No input
$ ./tstprg < /dev/null # EOF in input stream.
Enter string>
No input
$ ./tstprg # A one-character string.
Enter string> a
OK [a]
$ ./tstprg # Longer string but still able to fit.
Enter string> hello
OK [hello]
$ ./tstprg # Too long for buffer.
Enter string> hello there
Input too long [hello the]
$ ./tstprg # Test limit of buffer.
Enter string> 123456789
OK [123456789]
$ ./tstprg # Test just over limit.
Enter string> 1234567890
Input too long [123456789]
From the comp.lang.c FAQ: Why does everyone say not to use scanf? What should I use instead?
scanf has a number of problems—see questions 12.17, 12.18a, and 12.19. Also, its %s format has the same problem that gets() has (see question 12.23)—it’s hard to guarantee that the receiving buffer won’t overflow. [footnote]
More generally, scanf is designed for relatively structured, formatted input (its name is in fact derived from “scan formatted”). If you pay attention, it will tell you whether it succeeded or failed, but it can tell you only approximately where it failed, and not at all how or why. You have very little opportunity to do any error recovery.
Yet interactive user input is the least structured input there is. A well-designed user interface will allow for the possibility of the user typing just about anything—not just letters or punctuation when digits were expected, but also more or fewer characters than were expected, or no characters at all (i.e., just the RETURN key), or premature EOF, or anything. It’s nearly impossible to deal gracefully with all of these potential problems when using scanf; it’s far easier to read entire lines (with fgets or the like), then interpret them, either using sscanf or some other techniques. (Functions like strtol, strtok, and atoi are often useful; see also questions 12.16 and 13.6.) If you do use any scanf variant, be sure to check the return value to make sure that the expected number of items were found. Also, if you use %s, be sure to guard against buffer overflow.
Note, by the way, that criticisms of scanf are not necessarily indictments of fscanf and sscanf. scanf reads from stdin, which is usually an interactive keyboard and is therefore the least constrained, leading to the most problems. When a data file has a known format, on the other hand, it may be appropriate to read it with fscanf. It’s perfectly appropriate to parse strings with sscanf (as long as the return value is checked), because it’s so easy to regain control, restart the scan, discard the input if it didn’t match, etc.
Additional links:
longer explanation by Chris Torek
longer explanation by yours truly
References: K&R2 Sec. 7.4 p. 159
It is very hard to get scanf to do the thing you want. Sure, you can, but things like scanf("%s", buf); are as dangerous as gets(buf);, as everyone has said.
As an example, what paxdiablo is doing in his function to read can be done with something like:
scanf("%10[^\n]%*[^\n]", buf));
getchar();
The above will read a line, store the first 10 non-newline characters in buf, and then discard everything till (and including) a newline. So, paxdiablo's function could be written using scanf the following way:
#include <stdio.h>
enum read_status {
OK,
NO_INPUT,
TOO_LONG
};
static int get_line(const char *prompt, char *buf, size_t sz)
{
char fmt[40];
int i;
int nscanned;
printf("%s", prompt);
fflush(stdout);
sprintf(fmt, "%%%zu[^\n]%%*[^\n]%%n", sz-1);
/* read at most sz-1 characters on, discarding the rest */
i = scanf(fmt, buf, &nscanned);
if (i > 0) {
getchar();
if (nscanned >= sz) {
return TOO_LONG;
} else {
return OK;
}
} else {
return NO_INPUT;
}
}
int main(void)
{
char buf[10+1];
int rc;
while ((rc = get_line("Enter string> ", buf, sizeof buf)) != NO_INPUT) {
if (rc == TOO_LONG) {
printf("Input too long: ");
}
printf("->%s<-\n", buf);
}
return 0;
}
One of the other problems with scanf is its behavior in case of overflow. For example, when reading an int:
int i;
scanf("%d", &i);
the above cannot be used safely in case of an overflow. Even for the first case, reading a string is much more simpler to do with fgets rather than with scanf.
Yes, you are right. There is a major security flaw in scanf family(scanf,sscanf, fscanf..etc) esp when reading a string, because they don't take the length of the buffer (into which they are reading) into account.
Example:
char buf[3];
sscanf("abcdef","%s",buf);
clearly the the buffer buf can hold MAX 3 char. But the sscanf will try to put "abcdef" into it causing buffer overflow.
Problems I have with the *scanf() family:
Potential for buffer overflow with %s and %[ conversion specifiers. Yes, you can specify a maximum field width, but unlike with printf(), you can't make it an argument in the scanf() call; it must be hardcoded in the conversion specifier.
Potential for arithmetic overflow with %d, %i, etc.
Limited ability to detect and reject badly formed input. For example, "12w4" is not a valid integer, but scanf("%d", &value); will successfully convert and assign 12 to value, leaving the "w4" stuck in the input stream to foul up a future read. Ideally the entire input string should be rejected, but scanf() doesn't give you an easy mechanism to do that.
If you know your input is always going to be well-formed with fixed-length strings and numerical values that don't flirt with overflow, then scanf() is a great tool. If you're dealing with interactive input or input that isn't guaranteed to be well-formed, then use something else.
Many answers here discuss the potential overflow issues of using scanf("%s", buf), but the latest POSIX specification more-or-less resolves this issue by providing an m assignment-allocation character that can be used in format specifiers for c, s, and [ formats. This will allow scanf to allocate as much memory as necessary with malloc (so it must be freed later with free).
An example of its use:
char *buf;
scanf("%ms", &buf); // with 'm', scanf expects a pointer to pointer to char.
// use buf
free(buf);
See here. Disadvantages to this approach is that it is a relatively recent addition to the POSIX specification and it is not specified in the C specification at all, so it remains rather unportable for now.
The advantage of scanf is once you learn how use the tool, as you should always do in C, it has immensely useful usecases. You can learn how to use scanf and friends by reading and understanding the manual. If you can't get through that manual without serious comprehension issues, this would probably indicate that you don't know C very well.
scanf and friends suffered from unfortunate design choices that rendered it difficult (and occasionally impossible) to use correctly without reading the documentation, as other answers have shown. This occurs throughout C, unfortunately, so if I were to advise against using scanf then I would probably advise against using C.
One of the biggest disadvantages seems to be purely the reputation it's earned amongst the uninitiated; as with many useful features of C we should be well informed before we use it. The key is to realise that as with the rest of C, it seems succinct and idiomatic, but that can be subtly misleading. This is pervasive in C; it's easy for beginners to write code that they think makes sense and might even work for them initially, but doesn't make sense and can fail catastrophically.
For example, the uninitiated commonly expect that the %s delegate would cause a line to be read, and while that might seem intuitive it isn't necessarily true. It's more appropriate to describe the field read as a word. Reading the manual is strongly advised for every function.
What would any response to this question be without mentioning its lack of safety and risk of buffer overflows? As we've already covered, C isn't a safe language, and will allow us to cut corners, possibly to apply an optimisation at the expense of correctness or more likely because we're lazy programmers. Thus, when we know the system will never receive a string larger than a fixed number of bytes, we're given the ability to declare an array that size and forego bounds checking. I don't really see this as a down-fall; it's an option. Again, reading the manual is strongly advised and would reveal this option to us.
Lazy programmers aren't the only ones stung by scanf. It's not uncommon to see people trying to read float or double values using %d, for example. They're usually mistaken in believing that the implementation will perform some kind of conversion behind the scenes, which would make sense because similar conversions happen throughout the rest of the language, but that's not the case here. As I said earlier, scanf and friends (and indeed the rest of C) are deceptive; they seem succinct and idiomatic but they aren't.
Inexperienced programmers aren't forced to consider the success of the operation. Suppose the user enters something entirely non-numeric when we've told scanf to read and convert a sequence of decimal digits using %d. The only way we can intercept such erroneous data is to check the return value, and how often do we bother checking the return value?
Much like fgets, when scanf and friends fail to read what they're told to read, the stream will be left in an unusual state;
In the case of fgets, if there isn't sufficient space to store a complete line, then the remainder of the line left unread might be erroneously treated as though it's a new line when it isn't.
In the case of scanf and friends, a conversion failed as documented above, the erroneous data is left unread on the stream and might be erroneously treated as though it's part of a different field.
It's no easier to use scanf and friends than to use fgets. If we check for success by looking for a '\n' when we're using fgets or by inspecting the return value when we use scanf and friends, and we find that we've read an incomplete line using fgets or failed to read a field using scanf, then we're faced with the same reality: We're likely to discard input (usually up until and including the next newline)! Yuuuuuuck!
Unfortunately, scanf both simultaneously makes it hard (non-intuitive) and easy (fewest keystrokes) to discard input in this way. Faced with this reality of discarding user input, some have tried scanf("%*[^\n]%*c");, not realising that the %*[^\n] delegate will fail when it encounters nothing but a newline, and hence the newline will still be left on the stream.
A slight adaptation, by separating the two format delegates and we see some success here: scanf("%*[^\n]"); getchar();. Try doing that with so few keystrokes using some other tool ;)
There is one big problem with scanf-like functions - the lack of any type safety. That is, you can code this:
int i;
scanf("%10s", &i);
Hell, even this is "fine":
scanf("%10s", i);
It's worse than printf-like functions, because scanf expects a pointer, so crashes are more likely.
Sure, there are some format-specifier checkers out there, but, those are not perfect and well, they are not part of the language or the standard library.