Your characterization of Loom is, I think, pretty accurate.
There are, however, a few things in Java's early concurrency support that make various things harder, including Loom, and we're having to put some extra effort into grappling with them.
Probably the most obvious is the fact that the language and VM requires every object to have a monitor lock that can be synchronized and waited/notified. In 1996 this was viewed as "Ooooh, sophisticated, building locking and concurrency support into the platform!" In recent years this has started to get in the way. Really only a very few objects are used as locks, but the _potential_ for every object to be locked is paid by the JVM.
It also intrudes on Project Valhalla, which is trying to define "identity-less" inline types (formerly, "value types"). Ideally, we'd want all conventional objects and inline objects to be descendants of java.lang.Object. But Object has the locking APIs defined on it, and locking is intertwined with object identity. So, does Object have identity or not? There are some solutions, but they're kind of weird and special-cased.
Another issue is that the locks defined by the language/VM ("synchronized") are implemented differently from locks implemented by the library (in java.util.concurrent.locks). Loom supports virtual threads taking library-based locks, in that when a virtual thread blocks on a lock it will be dismounted from the real thread. This can't be done with language/VM locks, so there's an effort underway to migrate the those locks to delegate to library code for their implementation. This isn't an insurmountable problem, but it's yet more work to be done, and it's a consequence of some of the original designs of Java 1.0's concurrency model.