

As long as the user owns the TPM and has full control over it, I don’t see a problem. I paid for that hardware. I want to use it. There are already tools that can talk to it. It’s just not fully implemented and integrated into the system in a secure fashion. Indirectly, you kind of point out why there hasn’t been as much motivation to provide these features because they’re associated with the user giving up control, but it doesn’t have to be this way. The hardware can work for me if the support were there.
With the right support, it can even be combined with the password. This lets me enforce that the drive only unlocks in this machine, with this password, and only with the software that I set. That’s certainly more secure than how most distros do FDE today. It covers more use cases and enables a much stronger threat model.
Oh you poor innocent soul. Some things are best left unsaid.