Hi People I've been trying to find a segfault in a custom protocol I've been writing. I've finally tracked it down to a situation where bgp protocol, in bgp_rte_update, is calling rte_get_temp but not setting -> next to null, leaving it at whatever was left in RAM when the memory was allocated. Later, I see it's not null and try to access the ->next and eventually trigger a segfault. I've looked at the code and I can't see any reason why ->next shouldn't be set to null. So, does anyone know if this is going to cause problems later? The attached patch implements my change. I wonder if it might be better to explicitly set the rte pointed to by rte_get_temp to zero before using and returning it. I didn't want to make that change in case there are really good reasons why not. Cheers Nic C-L