Merge pull request #21723 from BerriAI/litellm_fix_cost_token_masking

[Fix] Model Info: input_cost_per_token masked in UI

litellm/litellm_core_utils/sensitive_data_masker.py

@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ class SensitiveDataMasker:
     def __init__(
         self,
         sensitive_patterns: Optional[Set[str]] = None,
+        non_sensitive_overrides: Optional[Set[str]] = None,
         visible_prefix: int = 4,
         visible_suffix: int = 4,
         mask_char: str = "*",
@@ -26,6 +27,10 @@ class SensitiveDataMasker:
             "fingerprint",
             "tenancy",
         }
+        # If any key segment matches one of these, the key is not considered sensitive
+        # even if it also matches a sensitive pattern. For example, "input_cost_per_token"
+        # contains "token" but "cost" overrides that — it's a pricing field, not a secret.
+        self.non_sensitive_overrides = non_sensitive_overrides or {"cost"}
 
         self.visible_prefix = visible_prefix
         self.visible_suffix = visible_suffix
@@ -56,6 +61,13 @@ class SensitiveDataMasker:
         # This avoids false positives like "max_tokens" matching "token"
         # but still catches "api_key", "access_token", etc.
         key_segments = key_lower.replace("-", "_").split("_")
+
+        # If any segment matches a non-sensitive override, the key is not sensitive.
+        # For example, "input_cost_per_token" contains "token" but also "cost",
+        # so it should not be masked — it's a pricing field, not a secret.
+        if any(override in key_segments for override in self.non_sensitive_overrides):
+            return False
+
         result = any(pattern in key_segments for pattern in self.sensitive_patterns)
         return result
 

tests/test_litellm/litellm_core_utils/test_sensitive_data_masker.py

@@ -121,3 +121,33 @@ def test_lists_with_sensitive_keys_are_masked():
 
     # non-sensitive list should remain unchanged
     assert masked["tags"] == ["prod", "test"]
+
+
+def test_cost_per_token_fields_not_masked():
+    """
+    Regression test: cost fields like input_cost_per_token contain "token" in their name
+    but should NOT be masked — they are pricing fields, not secrets.
+    Previously, these would be displayed as e.g. "3.60*******e-06" in the UI.
+    """
+    masker = SensitiveDataMasker()
+    data = {
+        "input_cost_per_token": 3.6e-06,
+        "output_cost_per_token": 1.2e-05,
+        "cache_read_input_token_cost": 9.0e-07,
+        "cache_creation_input_token_cost": 3.75e-06,
+        # Real secret fields should still be masked
+        "api_key": "sk-1234567890abcdef",
+        "access_token": "my-secret-token",
+    }
+
+    masked = masker.mask_dict(data)
+
+    # Cost fields must not be masked
+    assert masked["input_cost_per_token"] == 3.6e-06
+    assert masked["output_cost_per_token"] == 1.2e-05
+    assert masked["cache_read_input_token_cost"] == 9.0e-07
+    assert masked["cache_creation_input_token_cost"] == 3.75e-06
+
+    # Actual secrets must still be masked
+    assert "*" in masked["api_key"]
+    assert "*" in masked["access_token"]